radio-rebel-477

[radio-rebel-477]

This article details the recent developments within the now-resumed public corruption trial of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Due to the onset of the Israel-Hamas war and a court break for the High Holy Days and Sukkot, the Prime Minister’s trial was on a pause; however, upon resuming, Netanhayu’s defense team requested that there be fewer, a limit of two, hearings per week due to the ongoing war. The request comes from defense attorney Jack Chen, who explained to the judges that he has been in Gaza since the start of the war and is listed to participate in reservist duty one to two times a week. Although the bench has not made the decision to either limit the hearings to two days or expand them to four days a week, Judge Moshe Bar-Am stated [in regards to concluding the trial] that “we need to end this.” The disputed decision to resume Netanyahu’s trial came after Justice Yariv Levin’s issued a state of emergency.

Currently, Netanyahu is on trial for “public corruption,” which has been divided into three cases: Case 1000, Case 2000, and Case 4000.

Case 1000, which is regarding illegal gift affairs, accuses Natanhayu and his wife Sara of receiving valuable gifts of cigars, champagne, and jewelry from Arnon Milchan and James Packer in exchange for political favors.

Case 2000, also known as the Netanyahu Mozes Affair, deals with discussions between the Prime Minister and publisher Mozes about improving the former's media coverage in exchange for restrictions being placed on a competing newspaper.

Case 4000, known as the Bezeq-Walla Affair, deals with millions of shekels given to businessman Shaul Elovitch (a controlling shareholder of Bezeq, a telecommunications company) by Netanhyu in exchange for positive online coverage about the Prime Minister.

In light of my reading, I find no professional way to say this, but I am low-key shocked about the gravity of Prime Minister Netanhayu’s crimes. However, I must say that I am not entirely surprised since corruption seems to be a trend amongst the world’s leading leaders. I will say that I am surprised by the court’s decision to resume his trials since the country is facing a war and the subsequent issues that arise from it, so prosecuting the Prime Minister may not be the most strategic. But then again, I assume that the benefits of prosecuting your country's leader must outweigh not doing so, and if his actions have contributed to the current situation, it seems like a sound decision.

[radio-rebel-477]

Trigger Warning: Mention of S*xual Assault and R*pe

This article details cases of horrific s*xual assault and r*pe on Israeli women in which Hamas militants are deemed to be the initial perpetrators and lists the UN as a secondary accomplice for its failure to acknowledge gender-based violence. Professor Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, a legal scholar and international women’s rights activist who had previously been a member of the UN Convention on Discrimination Against Women, suggests that Hamas planned to use mass s*xual violence against Israeli women as a weapon of war. After an examination of graphic footage and witness accounts of assault survivors and first responders, which display a similar pattern of mutilation, she concludes that “the concentration of cases in less than a day, in numerous locations, could not have been unless there had not been a plan to use s*xual violence as a weapon of war.” It is important to mention that although there is an emphasis on violence towards women, Israeli people of all ages, including men, have also been exposed to similar attacks.

In response to the accusation, Hamas has “rejected and strongly denounced” the report of abuse and has stated that such claims are “lies'' facilitated by Israel in order to distort the “humane” treatment Hamas has extended to the hostages. In the eight weeks since the attack, the UN has been pressed by the protests of many Israeli women’s rights and legal activists, leading the organization to issue a statement tracing along the idea of the atrocities. However, Israel has refused to cooperate with an ongoing UN commission of inquiry in the area, which included s*xual violence on its docket, due to concerns about bias. This has led to tensions between Israel and UN officials, where the chair of the inquiry, Navi Pillay, summarizes that in order to give survivors a hearing and due justice, “All they [Israel] have to do is let us in."

I will be honest when I say that reading this article was quite upsetting to me because, although, in the back of my head, I knew such terrible things existed, seeing them on paper cemented everything into reality. We often acknowledge the general plight of the people during conflict; however, the abuses of people are not monolithic, and some groups are targeted more viciously than others. I must also admit that I never really understood why women are more likely to experience bodily violence during conflicts until I read Audra Simpson’s “The State Is a Man” (HIST-358) in which she details modern structural violence towards Native women as a vehicle for continued colonization. Although the Israel-Hamas situation is nowhere near the same as European colonization of North America and current issues, Simpson’s argument regarding women’s bodies as a platform for politics still stands to be relevant.

In short, and in the context of Native women, Simpson suggests that [Native] women’s bodies are synonymous with land and its resources, and they are targeted due to their ability to reproduce and further a people. The modern politics of the “other” allow its people to coalesce, and to the abusing party, it serves as a bitter reminder of their failure to decimate and eradicate the “other.” Therefore, if politics comes from the people and the people come from women, the women must be taken out first, and subsequent politics will fall apart in its wake. Yes, the situation here is not the same, and the argument can be applied to both Israel and Hamas. However, in both cases, the victims are still women, which is what I would like to emphasize: Brutality towards women is inherently political and horrifically essential in order to break down a people.

*Note: This is not an argument for anyone’s indigeneity; it is a concept that I think can be transferred to understand why gendered violence happens the way it does.

[radio-rebel-477]

This article brings forth the very recent call to action made by members of the Knesset, which asks volunteers to help save Israeli agriculture. The signed effort, which extends across Israel’s political spectrum, comes in light of the decline of Israel's agricultural sector and asks for people to volunteer on Israeli farms due to the shortage of farmhands, many of whom were called up for army service, were migrant workers who left Israel due to safety concerns, or were subject to “a closure imposed by the Palestinian Authority" after October 7th. The revitalizing endeavor is to be sponsored by the Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry, which will cover the costs of the volunteers’ transportation to the farms, accommodation, and food until a more permanent solution can be found. The volunteers themselves may include IDF soldiers, students from local schools, employees of the Israel Land Authority, and any independent actors within the public sector. Furthermore, regular people who are willing to help are also encouraged to apply.

I will be honest in saying that I chose this article due to its limited reference to the carnage of the Israel-Hamas conflict. It is not a secret that during the past few weeks, we have all been on a hefty diet of news about violence, political negotiations, and backlash. I find that during the frenzy, stories of how the state of Israel still continues to operate as a state, that is, perform regular, non-militaristic legislative functions, for its people get washed away. Therefore, I find it important to share this small update on the internal affairs of Israel, which are slightly related to the conflict but not entirely consumed by it. Furthermore, when referencing the Knesset, we have often mentioned the tensions that lay within it but have yet to discuss how even something as volatile as the Knesset is able to still come together and act for the undeniable betterment of the people. It is easy to forget that despite being in wartime, states must still function as states, and I would like to think that despite how unsalvageable or tonedeaf the national politics of any country may seem to be, there is hope for governing bodies to rise to the challenge and find solutions for its people.

[radio-rebel-477]

This article brings to attention the inhumane situation within the Israeli prisons that house Palestinian offenders and the subsequent rise in the number of arrests after the start of the Israel-Hamas war. This past week, a temporary truce between Hamas and Israel was enacted where 50 hostages were to be exchanged for 150 Palestinian prisoners; however, during the same time period, Israel has arrested roughly the same number of Palestinians it has freed (about 133 Palestinians from East Jerusalem and the West Bank). It should be added that the arrest of Palestinian people is a daily occurrence, but a significant uptick has been made in the days since October 7th and even more so in the past 5 days of the truce. The first two weeks of the war saw the number of Palestinians in Israeli prisons double from 5,200 to over 10,000 people. However, it is also said to be the case that upon release, a majority of the freed Palestinians find themselves rearrested and deemed to be repeat offenders. Furthermore, the increase in population density within prisons has contributed to the decline in sanitation, access to, and general welfare within the prisons. The recently documented severe beatings, abuse, heavily restricted yard time, halting of family visits, and the cutting of electricity and hot water have all added to the toll of Palestinian prisoners.

During my reading, I was most shocked by the simple fact that Israel arrested roughly the same number of Palestinians it freed. It could be strategic; it could also add to the troubles, but it was definitely unforeseen by everyone who is not Israel. I concede that arrests can be made for various reasons, but I do find it suspicious how convenient the timing is and how similar the number of arrests is. If it is the case that Hamas has taken no more hostages and Israel has arrested many more Palestinians despite the release of some, then it seems that the temporary truce and exchange of people were only beneficial for Israel. The source states that roughly 15-20 Palestinians are arrested a night, whereas at least 133 arrests have been made in the past 5 days. Although it may be a coincidence, it may also be convenient to work around the terms of the truce. From what has been shared, the terms of the ceasefire do not list anything about “taking in more prisoners or hostages"; they just policed the actual fighting. Regardless, I wonder if Hamas will pick up on this occurrence, a seemingly net loss, and continue to work with Israel on the hostage/prisoner release.

[radio-rebel-477]

This article recounts the details of the temporary truce between Israel and Hamas, which is based upon the exchange of the respective hostages and prisoners held by the two actors. Brokered in large part by Qatar, the deal between Israel and Hamas is set to last for four days, during which Hamas will release 13 hostages, Israel will halt air traffic above northern Gaza during certain hours and southern Gaza entirely, and Israel will release 150 Palestinian prisoners. Furthermore, Hamas has stated that its armed military wing and “all other Palestinian factions" will halt “all military activity.” The exchange of people is set to occur in waves, and Israel has also welcomed a clause into the deal where the country will extend the pause by one day for every 10 additional hostages released. However, despite the enactment of the pause, fighting between Israel and Hamas is not expected to come to an official end, with Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant stating that after the pause, “fighting will continue intensely, and we [Israel] will create pressure to bring back more hostages.”

In light of my reading, I am impressed at the fact that a deal was able to be struck, one that has terms that sound reasonable to everyone involved. As I write this, I wonder what specific concessions were made by Hamas and Israel and at what extreme poles they began their discussions, but that is the beauty of "wonder," which we may never know.

It seems that Israel’s strategy is now to secure all hostages, so it can eliminate Hamas’ bargaining chips entirely and buy itself some time to replenish and strengthen itself before waging more and perhaps a war of more extreme measures. Although not explicitly stated, I infer that this is the case because, on top of the current hostage exchange, Israel is willing to extend the pause for an additional 24 hours for every 10 more people, when just a few weeks ago there were no talks and fighting was in full force. Furthermore, because I think war and, to a greater extent, all states use the utilitarian metric, there must be a greater good for the state within the extra day of pause beyond the retrieval of 10 more people.

My logic is as follows: if there are 240 people, minus the 50 people Hamas will release in the next 40, there are 190 hostages left. So 190 people are divided by 10 people (because 10 people per day = 19 days). If we assume that Israel is willing to make good on its promise to the people regarding the hostages’ safe return and the pause with Hamas, the country will have to stop fighting with the group for at least 19 full days to bring everyone home. If we consider the fact that Israel cannot continue to put out the same intensity of force, we see that somewhere, somehow they need to take a break, get supplies and arms shipped to them, etc, and they can do so during the 19 days. Furthermore, if Hamas also agrees to stop fighting during these days, then Israel is in a better position to prepare for what Netanyahu has said to be the ‘continuing of war until we achieve our goals.”

[radio-rebel-477]

This article details the ongoing story about a lawsuit filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) against President Biden and various members of his cabinet. The lawsuit accuses the administration of “failure to prevent and complicity in the Israeli government’s unfolding genocide.” The suit itself is led by the CCR and has been filed on behalf of Palestinian human rights organizations, Palestinians in Gaza, and US citizens with relatives in Gaza. The evidence for which the case of genocide is built upon includes “statements of intent” by Israeli officials and the subsequent “mass killings.” The rights group states that the Biden Administration has “helped advance the gravest of crimes” through the unconditional military and diplomatic support pledged to Israel. Furthermore, the lawsuit calls for an end to the annual $3.8 billion in military support that is provided to Israel.

In light of my reading, I was most intrigued by the “statements of intent” that are being used as evidence, since they tie directly to our previous in-class discussions. In class, we discussed and questioned to what extent intent must be present for mass killings to be labeled as genocide and the gray area that exists: if annihilistic rhetoric is not present but the outcome is mass death and violence against explicitly targeted people, this lawsuit uses the fact that “numerous Israeli government leaders have expressed clear genocidal intentions and deployed dehumanizing characterizations of Palestinians, including “human animals." In class, we have learned that exceptions do exist and that there are indeed some people on the right wing who have taken things too far. Therefore, I find myself wondering: if one part of the administration is acting problematically, does the entire government, and therefore the whole people of the state, need to pay for the actions of those few? Especially if we have seen a wide range of protests from the public calling out those problematic officials in the government.

Furthermore, this case sees the annihilistic rhetoric of Israeli officials, but I wonder if it also considers the fact that Hamas, which began in a specific conflict, has explicit annihilistic rhetoric threaded within its own charter. I think this piece of information does matter, because if it is considered, the case would then become a game of “who started it first” and “who was being more of an annihilator.” Since Israel would not want to be found guilty, it seems that they would rely on the idea that Hamas invaded them first and said that they actually wanted to destroy the country, whereas the remaining story would suggest that even if such was the case, Israel did inflict more damage and death upon Gaza. Regardless, I am interested to see how the conflict will translate into legal terms and balance the lines of fact, ethics, and accountability.

[radio-rebel-477]

This article details the ongoing crisis and threats that loom above al-Shifa hospital in Gaza and Israel’s recent attack on the building's solar panel system. Currently serving as a mortuary, hospital, and humanitarian refuge, speculation by Israeli forces suggests that underneath al-Shifa’s buildings lies Hamas’ headquarters. Due to the ongoing violence within the region, al-Shifa, the largest and most extensive medical complex, has been heavily burdened since 16/35 of Gaza’s hospitals have stopped functioning. With the capacity to treat approximately 700 patients, al-Shifa has been struggling to treat the 5,000 who are behind its doors and the remaining 800 people who await treatment. Furthermore, the hospital is housing thousands of displaced people as the war rages on. It has been thought that Hamas’ underground tunnels and main meeting place are located directly below the hospital and are being used to smuggle away medical supplies and fuel. The claim by Israel is not the first time al-Shifa has been linked with Hamas since in 2014 Amnesty International accused Hamas of using abandoned parts of the hospital to commit “spine chilling atrocities.” With over 150 of its staff members lost to violence, diminishing power sources and medical supplies, limited water, unsanitary conditions, and the constant fear of bombardment, al-Shifa is now being forced to make harrowing decisions about which life-supporting machines it may need to turn off and whose treatment they will prioritize. There are also talks of deeming Israel’s actions towards the hospital as potential war crimes.

In light of my reading, I find myself feeling just awful, and I know that it means nothing in the face of the reality of those who are actively facing the situation in al-Shifa. Seeing that Israel has declared its commitment to the destruction of Hamas and believes that Hamas operates underneath al-Shifa, and what we know about Hamas strategically using human shields, the future for the hospital seems dark and questionable since the oasis for the people is caught in a crossfire.

I do not agree with Israel’s decision to take out the hospital’s solar panel system, due to the humanitarian cost that Gaza will once again have to incur, and I do not understand the path of Israel’s logic chain in its actions. Most notably, I keep thinking back to our class discussion where we learned that Hamas is rhetorically an existential threat to Israel; that is, they use annihilatory language and “dream” of being the destroyers of Israel; however, Hamas is not *actually* an existential threat to Israel, due to the disparity in military prowess between the two. I also think back to our conversion regarding why people turn to terrorism in the first place, and it seems that the recent horrors may breed more extremism. Therefore, I cannot conceive of why Israel acts in the way it does here. If we know that targeting Hamas with violence towards a hospital would A. not take out all of Hamas as intended, B. potentially create more extremism, C. cause or continue a massive humanitarian crisis, D. create a PR nightmare for Israel, and E. not resolve anything, then why does the state of Israel act in the way it does?

The closest answer I can come up with is that Israel feels the need to save face after being invaded and targeted by Hamas, and therefore it is willing to do what is necessary to make good on the promise of uprooting them. My idea is based on the principles of revisionist zionism by Jabotinsky, which states that Israel needs to be a powerful state if it wants to survive and that power is the currency of the world; it may be the case that the idea of this brand of zionism is being perverted and taken to the extreme of the extreme.  

NOTE: I am not saying Zionism is bad; I do not think it is something bad. I believe that there should be a state for Jewish people; I just think there is potential for its principles to be disfigured for other ends beyond a Jewish state.

But even then, I feel that the state has damaged its reputation by walking and perhaps overstepping the dangerous line of self-preservation and self-destruction. However, I then counter myself by thinking that Israel need not fret about what the international audience thinks and feels since it is backed by the United States. But then, is the power of the US still really that valuable?

As the situation develops, I know that I will continue to chew on my question, and I welcome my classmates to share their views and help me understand things more or differently.

[radio-rebel-477]

This article details the gruesome milestone of the Israel and Hamas conflict: a death toll of more than 10,000 people in Gaza within the first four weeks of the war. Alongside the massive humanitarian crisis, violence against Palestinians in the West Bank has seen an uptick, with almost 155 killed since the start of the conflict. In light of the prolonged violence, humanitarian groups, particularly those associated with the United Nations, have pleaded for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. The article continues to share that Israel’s military operations in Gaza have expanded operations in the north to “boots on the ground” techniques and have urged civilians to steer clear and to move towards the southern Rafah border crossing. Despite the efforts of the IDF to move civilians from areas that they will target, they are limited in what can be done after their migration. Since, once at the border with Egypt, only a limited number of people who hold foreign passports and appear on the approval list, which is managed by Hamas, are allowed out of Gaza, leaving the rest trapped in the war-torn region. Furthermore, President Biden has been in discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu about “tactical pauses," the release of hostages, aid programs for Gaza, and the legal condemnation of extremists in the West Bank.

Upon my reading, I found the number of 10,000 to be so nauseating and painful. I understand the mechanics behind Israel’s militarized actions towards Hamas, since the latter is deemed to be an existential threat. I understand that there is a cruel reality in war where people must die, particularly innocent people, and that they are the losers of it all. I understand why it is hard to reach a ceasefire, since it would only stop the fighting just for it to resume again and the agency questions that lay within it because Hamas acts in factions. I also understand that the overall conflict between Israel and Palestine is not about taking sides. Although I do support Israel in the case of the Israel-Hamas war, for reasons that can be found in my earlier posts, each day I find myself struggling to maintain the position due to the rise in the country's sheer brutality. I concede that yes, Hamas is an existential threat that seeks the elimination of Jews. I also concede that people die in war, and Hamas strategically hides and operates in refugee camps, hospitals, and areas with high civilian populations. But 10,000 people, who were just civilians with no way out, born to die in Gaza, is truly heartbreaking, and I find that I cannot defend that any longer.

Yes, there is a human toll in war, and Israel has chosen to eliminate Hamas, but to me at this point, it seems that regardless of intent, if we analyze the tangible impacts, the war between Hamas and Israel is between two groups that pose some sort of existential threat to one another. The only difference is that Hamas violently acts out against Israel with clearly stated extermination rhetoric, whereas Israel has not expressed such intent, but its actions have done damage similar to extermination. I recognize the need to highlight intent and ideology, especially between a legitimate state and a terrorist group; however, I find that these are very privileged discussions to have, since the fact of the matter is that people are disproportionately dying. Death does not discriminate along the lines of intent; it comes wherever it is summoned. My thoughts may not have any coherence or educational value; however, I would like to believe that writing them down and sharing them with my peers can guide me towards a better understanding of what I feel and expose me to new perspectives on the situation. 

[radio-rebel-477]

This article recounts a statement made by President Zelensky of Ukraine in which the leader states, “It is clear that the war in the Middle East is taking away the focus [from Ukraine].” He continues by sharing that “this was one of the goals [of Russia].” It is suggested that there is a fear that noise from the Hamas-Israel war would shift global focus, efforts, and aid away from Ukraine, ultimately weakening the besieged country. Due to the prolonged nature of the conflict in northern Europe coupled with the growing reluctance of Ukraine’s western allies to continue giving aid through weapons and funds, it has been suggested that the fighting in Russia and Ukraine has reached a stalemate. However, both countries deny the statement, with each suggesting that they have made significant tactical and territorial strides toward their goals and have not lost as much as the other claims.

In light of my reading, I have thought of something that might seem inappropriate to say. To me, Zelensky’s claim, in which he circles the idea that the conflict in the Middle East is “taking away focus,” reads like he is trying to compete in the oppression olympics. I can understand why he, as a leader of a people under attack, may feel that way, but to come out and say it... does not seem very strategic, especially since he is comparing plights. There are other human rights violations and wars being fought in the world, but to specifically call out what is happening between Israel and Hamas and tie Ukraine to it is, for lack of a better word, just weird. As strange as it may seem, I can imagine a situation in which his sentence was carefully calculated to pigeonhole Ukraine’s allies, who are also providing in the Israel-Hamas war, to continue their aid to Ukraine so as to dodge accusations of war fatigue. By calling the allies' potential for their aid to Ukraine to waver, Zelensky makes it known that should it actually happen, it was due to Ukraine being prioritized second to the Israel-Hamas conflict, which would then force these countries to answer why they did so.

[radio-rebel-477]

This article details recent developments in negotiations between Hamas and Israel, where the former is ready to release its prisoners in exchange for all Palestinians jailed by Israel. The Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, have stated that the group currently holds 200–250 hostages, with the remaining 50 having been killed in the Israeli raids on the Gaza Strip. However, the Israeli army states that the number of total, alive hostages is near 240. Although many countries whose citizens are being held in Gaza are trying to get their people home, Hamas has expressed that it is only holding “Israelis.” Their claim is explained by Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzouk, who states that Hamas considers captives who are citizens of both Israel and another country to only be Israeli all together. He further states that the people will not be released until Israel agrees to a ceasefire.

Furthermore, there is an unknown number of captives being held by Gazan civilians, which, Abu Marzouk says, first need to be found, processed, and checked for non-Israeli nationality before they may be considered for release. With hostages in their hands, the Hamas leadership has stated it is willing to negotiate an exchange of all captives (a contested number of around 250) for all Palestinians (about 10,000 people) currently in Israeli jail. However, Prime Minister Netanhyu has turned away from any discussion with Hamas but has promised the families of hostages that “We [Israel] will exhaust every possibility to bring them home.”

In light of my reading, I have become more aware of the lexical games that exist in war and the undeniable targeting of Israelis by Hamas. One would assume that one’s nationality would be the country one legally belongs to; however, Hamas has perverted the definition to scope out Israelis specifically. Despite having hostages from various countries, those with ties to Israel are denied the potential for release until Israel comes to a ceasefire, whereas those who are foreigners may be set free. By making such distinctions between the captives, Hamas confirms its bitter hatred for Israel.

Furthermore, I see, but can't begin to fathom, the impossible challenge for Israel, where they must weigh the lives of some 250 people against those of an entire country. Israel was made as a safe space for Jewish people, and so in its very definition, the country has a specific burden of protecting its Jewish citizens; however, should they be unable to broker something to bring back the taken people, they fail to uphold a founding tenant of their country. The exchange of hostages in a potential ceasefire also breeds a circular problem of violence where more people could be taken again.

My heart goes out to those who are missing a loved one and to those who have been taken and must brave this horrific situation.

[radio-rebel-477]

This article recounts Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh’s accusation of “barbaric massacres” on Israel after the country deployed an airstrike on the Jabalia refugee. Haniyeh continues his claim by stating that Israel has now taken to massacring the unarmed civilians of the besieged Gaza strip to mask its own defeats in the region. In light of recent escalations, Haniyeh warns that Israel will be held accountable for their violent actions in the Palestinian camp and that hostages being held in Gaza may “face the same risk of death and destruction.” The hit at the refugee camp was confirmed by Israel, which stated that it was successful in killing a senior Hamas member and many other terrorists.

Furthermore, At the United Nations, a plea calling for an immediate humanitarian truce between Israel and Hamas has been made by 120 countries, with the United States and Israel voting “no.” Their concern comes from the devastating and deadly impact that the violence has had on the children who reside in Gaza, with over 450 children being killed or injured each day. Prime Minister Netanyahu defends his position on dismissing a ceasefire by saying that the ceasefire would be the equivalent of surrendering to Hamas.

In light of my reading, I came across the hypocrisy of Hamas and their actions towards Israel. I would like to begin by saying that I do condemn violence and find that what is happening in Gaza is absolutely horrific. However, as discussed in class, my belief that Hamas does not care for the actual Palestinian people themselves has been strengthened.

In this article, Hamas leader Haniyeh is quoted as saying that the regional unrest would continue until “Palestinians obtain legitimate rights to freedom, independence, and return.” But he is also quoted as saying that the bloodshed must be stopped and that the rest of the world should continue to rally in defense of the Palestinian cause. He is advocating for two very different things, almost as if he wants violence to occur at his convenience. He condemns Israel for not coming to a ceasefire, but in the same breath, he asserts that Hamas will continue to fight; a ceasefire requires the cooperation of two parties, and he clearly says that Hamas will not be doing that. Furthermore, he accuses Israel of coming into refugee camps to kill unarmed civilians, while failing to consider that Hamas did the same when it invaded Israel. His conflicting statements seem irrational to logic, but that doesn’t matter because Hamas is able to catch Israel in a double bind: fight Hamas and be villainized, or not fight and risk becoming victim to their existential threat, all the while Hamas can capitalize on the pain and suffering of Palestinains. Although my realization of this hypocrisy may not be novel and a bit late, it has allowed me to understand exactly why countries like Israel and the United States refuse to negotiate with terrorists because the latter are dead set on their demands, and therefore you simply cannot rationalize with them. 

[radio-rebel-477]

This article shares the recent developments in the Israel and Hamas conflict, specifically regarding the situation surrounding the captives that have been taken to Gaza by the latter. Details and quotes from a Hamas official named Abu Hamid about the potential release of the captives have been shared by Kommersant, a Russian newspaper. Hamid has allegedly stated that “hundreds of citizens and dozens of fighters from various Palestinian factions entered the territories occupied in 1948, and they captured dozens of people, most of them civilians.” He continues and shares that Hamas planned on releasing “the civilian prisoners since the first days of the war” and that “we [Hamas] need time to find them in the Gaza strip and then release them.” Furthermore, he has said that Hamas could not release the Israeli captives until a ceasefire was agreed upon. This information has been sourced from the Hamas delegation to Russia, where journalist Yulia Shapovlova states that by receiving members of Hamas, Moscow seeks to show its importance as a regional player through attempts at mediating the conflict.

I chose this article because it makes reference to the concept of a ceasefire that we have been discussing in class. Upon reflection, I find myself wondering what Hamas expected the outcome of their invasion to be. And to what extent did they believe that the demands of a ceasefire (which have not been spelled out) that they placed on Israel could be feasible? It is quite obvious that the holdings of Israelis are being used as bargaining chips. I support this conclusion from our in-class historical examples that suggest Israel does care deeply about retrieving and protecting its citizens, such as the raid on Entebbe and prior to 2005, when Israel had a ratio of multiple soldiers per one citizen at the settlements in Gaza. But, now that the stakes are higher, Israel is caught in a double bind, where the fate of captives hangs on on side and perhaps the entire country on the other.

Furthermore, I was interested in the appearance of Russia speaking with Hamas and what that could mean for the power dynamics within the region. If Russia is allied with Iran and Iran supports Hamas, but Russia is negotiating with Hamas for the release of its citizens, where does this leave the relations between Russia and Iran if we agree that the latter was an instigator in the recent conflict?

[radio-rebel-477]

This article examines the recent events between Hamas and Israel and questions what the United States’ endgame in Gaza could be. More specifically, the article brings to attention the United States’ failure to call for a ceasefire, with President Biden speaking on behalf of the country claiming that he does not wish to see the conflict expand whilst supplying Israel with arms. Without much substance, the article repeatedly circles the question of what will become of Gaza should Hamas fall, but prior to that, it prompts the reader to think of what US-backed-Israel's plan for the territory could be. Using various statements from think-tanks and worst-case hypotheticals, the article fails to rise above anything greater than a conjecture. 

Although my article summaries are usually longer and informative, during my reading, I simply could not find more to write about. That is, it seemed that this article took its imagination and ran with it when reporting about the conflict, leaving nothing newsworthy. I must admit that I am quite disappointed since usually I am able to find something worth thinking and reading about, however from this experience I will take a much needed lesson: speculation is not anything substantive. 

I will note that the article seeks to catch the United States in a moment of hypocrisy where they are denouncing violence yet actively participating in it. However as our class discussions have revealed #CeasefireNow has no meaning whatsoever. It is too vague and any possible ceasefire would accomplish nothing since Israel would still be left to face off with with a terrorist group that no ceasefire would actually solve for. Despite not being receptive to the article’s content, I was still able to make some observations in my reading regarding general grammar and word choice. In this article, Hamas is referred to as a “Palestinian group” and there is no mention of their label as terrorists. Furthermore, the word “atrocities” was used in scare quotes to refer to Hamas’ violence in Israel, as if the terror they have caused is alleged and not real. Although these are minor things, they truly change how we view and therefore understand material.

#pols477

[radio-rebel-477]

This article highlights Iran’s response, which ushers Muslim countries to sanction Israel, after the controversial and developing story surrounding a deadly attack on a hospital in Gaza. According to Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian, specific terms of the sanction would include the expulsion of Israeli ambassadors and imposing an oil embargo on Israel. Tension amongst the Israel-Hamas conflict escalated significantly after an air raid earlier this week killed over 500 people in a hospital in Gaza. Israel denies responsibility for the attack, suggesting that it was a terrorist misfire and the work of the IDF, whereas Hamas and many of the neighboring Muslim countries continue to assert that it was indeed Israel. The aftermath of the attack has led to an uproar of protests in front of Israeli embassies, with protesters seeking to highlight the continued atrocities that now seem to not even spare the weak.

During my reading, I noticed that back and forth of the blame game mixed in with competing, yet incomplete evidence was used as the basis of arguments of “who did what” and “who is wrong for what.” I find myself thinking about all of the social media social justice that I have seen in the past 24 hours that denounces Israel as a demonic and violent aggressor with zero regard for human life. However, today’s news shares that the United States intelligence agencies possess hard evidence that the hit was in fact a Palestinian rocket misfire. And so I wonder: What becomes of these social media posts? Do we consider them to be internet pollution? Or failed attempts to be informational? If what the United States is said to have is true, does everyone just go back on what they said? Was it just one big "oops, my bad!"? I understand where the intent of reposting comes from; however, with the click of a button, misinformation can catch fire quicker than anything else. Although we as media users might just see it as a mistake on our part that we can easily delete from our profiles, misinformation has tangible consequences for people beyond a PR nightmare. Therefore, as I wrap up my rambling thoughts, I hope that in the massive amount of information we as consumers must sift through, we are able to explore the possibilities and actually take the time to understand an issue before reposting.

#POLS477

[radio-rebel-477]

This article details the occurrences of worldwide protests in support of Palestine against Israel and the country’s counterattacks on Hamas. With wide support for the former, Hamas is thought to be seeking freedom for civilians from an oppressive Israel and its equally responsible citizens. Within these protests, notions of Israel’s settler colonialism and zionism as violent and subjugating practices are used as arguments to condemn the country.

Upon reading, the first thing that stood out to me was the vocabulary of the protestors when speaking of the issue. The phrases and words such as “liberating Palestine,” “Gaza,” “Palestinians,” and "Hamas" seem to be used synonymously or at least in tandem to support the greater idea of the invasion as an attempt to free Palestine. However, as we have learned in class and history proves, such is not the case. Hamas is a terrorist organization that has assumed control of Gaza and brutally subjugates the Palestinian people under their control. Yes, it is true that Hamas is composed of Palestinians, but they do not represent the greater Palestinian people or their interests. Furthermore, the official position and charter of Hamas declare that their goal is to annihilate the Jewish people and destroy Israel. So when Hamas acts, it is not in the interest of the Palestinians or to create a Palestinian state for the people; they do so with the intent to impose suffering upon Israel and the Jewish people, using Palestinian civilians as a means to an end.

I find that people are afraid to admit that two things can be true at once. It is possible to say that the historical encroachment of Israeli settlements into the contested West Bank at the expense of Palestinians is wrong. It is also possible to say that a terrorist invasion and attack on Israel are wrong. Although Israel can be held accountable for its oppressive actions and policies towards Palestinians in other ways, terrorism is not solvency. Especially if the solvency is done with the intent to annihilate.

The main argument against the state of Israel is settler colonialism. However, this debate is muddled in semantics. Who is a settler? What constitutes colonialism? Definitionally, settler colonialism is the action in which a foreign body invades a native society to take them over and replace previous structures with imported ones. Due to the Jewish religious and historical ties to land in Palestine, we can say that in specific regions, Israel has a legitimate claim and is not conducting settler colonialism since the Jews are not foreign people. I agree that there is territory that is not related to Israel and has been taken over for political reasons, such as the back and forth of the Sinai. However, to declare that the entirety of Israel is a settler colonial state, which is what many view the country as, is simply incorrect.

A secondary charge against Israel is one of ethnic cleansing and genocide against the Palestinians, and that their military response to freedom-seeking people led by Hamas is wrong. I will not deny that there are historical instances in which Israeli forces have committed acts that are heinous towards the Palestinians; however, the Hamas charter explicitly states that they seek the annihilation of Jews. Then is the latter not genocide? When one is supporting Hamas and their mirage of liberation, they are also supporting the genocide against Jewish people. This is not a baseless conclusion; the logical chain of beliefs proves it. One cannot agree with Hamas’ actions and also divorce themselves from the murderous intentions that the group has, since it dictates all of their actions.

This argument is often refuted by people suggesting that Hamas acts in retaliation towards Israel’s decades-long brutality; however, this rebuttal fails to include the retaliation of Hamas using rhetoric and actions of decimation, which is the same charge that supporters of the group accuse Israel of.

The argument of Zionism as a problematic ideology that serves to inflate Israel is used as a supplement to why the country is morally reprehensible. Zionism as an idea simply states that there ought to be a Jewish homeland. It was inspired by the realization that there is no safe space in the world for Jews besides one that can be created by them for them. The idea of Zionism is then thrown around as an excuse for a supposed Jewish supremacy and removal of Palestinians. The idea itself does not suggest or derive from either. However, it can be perverted by those in power to achieve those notions. Therefore, we must not find issue with the idea of Zionism that simply seeks a safe space for Jewish people, but rather with those in charge, I believe that there ought to be a Jewish homeland for the Jewish people, the history of their exile and suffering shows the need for it. However, if we blame Zionism for the horrors we see today, we do a disservice to the Jewish people and prove exactly why the idea was needed in the first place.

Like many others, I find the situation in Gaza and Israel to be absolutely horrific; however, I do not agree with the idea that people ought to take sides of “pro-Israel” or "pro-Palestine" in this situation. In the midst of conflict, survival is a priority, and we must be on the side of assisting and saving civilians on both ends. I agree that there should be a two-state solution; however, the two-state solution would not require Palestinians to be free from Israel; rather, it would require them to be free from Hamas. I agree that Israel has conducted improper acts in the past; however, the present must be treated as an isolated case of a people and country being violently invaded. Israel can be held accountable for its actions that are deemed wrong, but terrorism that thinks only in favor of terrorists and seeks decimation is not the way. 

[radio-rebel-477]

This article explores the philosophical principles and legal issues surrounding Israel’s decision to cut off electricity and water to Gaza. Dr. Elai Rettig of the Department of Political Science at Bar-Ilan University uses facts and figures about Gaza’s previous situation to inform what Israel’s action could mean for the region. As of Thursday, Israel has promised that no water, electricity, or fuel will be allowed into Gaza until Hamas releases hostages. However, such a decision has come under heavy scrutiny since, in order to push Hamas, innocent Palestinian civilians will suffer as a result. Israel has responded by suggesting that the fuel and power sent to Gaza run the risk of being intercepted and used by Hamas against Israel. However, with regards to water, Dr. Retting shares that Israel only provides 10% of the water that Gaza receives; therefore, should the country stop sending supplies, residents of Gaza will still have other options. He continues by suggesting that "so far Israel can say that it is taking action for a limited time frame, then it is not a war crime,” but should the time frame expand to one to two weeks, their actions would definitely become illegal. His conclusion arises from the country acting only temporarily and for specific tactical reasons to “hinder its enemy’s ability to monitor and attack Israeli forces.” The article concludes that although Israel’s use of tactical means to pressure Hamas in exchange for hostages can be ethical and justified, international law will be unable to legitimize it should the country’s intentions be laced with the desire for vengeance.

In light of reading this article, I have to share that I do think it is wrong for Israel to cut off energy and water to Gaza in this way. Although I recognize the tactical reasons for hostage exchange and limiting the enemy’s ability, I feel that too many innocent civilians will have to suffer more. But I guess that this is the cost of war. Israel has a duty to protect its citizens first and does not necessarily have to shoulder the well-being of Palestinians in Gaza; therefore, I can see why it is most strategic for them to forgo the more humanitarian cause and focus on defeating Hamas. However, I find that the outcomes of this action (hostage retrieval) are not entirely guaranteed, and Hamas is well equipped and supplied, meaning that the supply cut will not affect them in the disastrous ways it will the people. It is an awful, awful decision to be made, and there are simply no good solutions.

#POLS477

[radio-rebel-477]

This article shares the outbreak of violence that occurred when Israeli settlers attacked the Palestinian town of Huwara, leading to the death of 19-year-old Labib Dumaidi. The incident comes one day after a Palestinian gunman shot at an Israeli car in the same city. At midnight, Huawara was then met by more than 200 Israeli settlers who initially shouted and danced but later incited violence by throwing stones at Palestinian homes and people; residents of the town retailted in a similar manner. There are two narratives currently surrounding the passing of Labib, one by his relatives claiming he was hiding on the rooftop of his home that was under assault by settlers, and another by the Israeli military stating that Labib was shot after he threw a brick at a vehicle. Labib’s funeral had a large attendance by members of the community; however, 51 Palestinians are said to have been injured during the procession as Israeli forces fired tear gas, rubber bullets, and live fire.

During my reading, I could not help but notice the similarities to this incident and the one that was behind the sparking of the first intifada. The first intifada was said to have been ignited by an Israeli truck that accidentally struck and killed four Palestinians, and rumors spread that it was an act of revenge for the earlier stabbing of an Israeli man by a Palestinian. Matters were also made worse by the actions of the Israeli military during crowd control at the funeral. I was also reminded of Shipler’s chapter 3, where he writes of the Liberal Israeli papers speaking of the “Wild West Bank, for gun-slinging settlers [that] were practically free to administer their own summary of justice when they faced violence."

In the case of Huwara, the principle of “eye for an eye" still remains. Although I am not suggesting that the recent conflict will develop into something like an intifada, I wonder how much more needs to occur in order to “make the whole world blind.” I concede that I am much too idealistic and philosophical when it comes to real life. As much as I want everyone to take the higher road and be morally sophisticated, I know that having these ideas comes mostly to those with the privilege of security and an atmosphere that promotes liberal thinking. When people are constantly in an environment of violence, ideals of peace and love for their neighbors are hard to maintain, a factor many people fail to consider when discussing solutions and policy between Israel and Palestine. 

#POLS477