How Israelis view Netanyahu's strikes on Iran
News reporting, Eric Tlozek: This is a huge step, widespread strikes across Iran. There's been multiple waves of ballistic missiles, some of which have landed here in Tel Aviv. This could just be the start of Iran's retaliation. Behind me, an apartment building's been struck. Are we being told to shelter? Yes. Okay, there's another raid underway right now. We've got to take shelter. Well, it's underway. It's happening right now. We just had a very large boom. The buildings were shaking. We're hearing multiple interceptions in the skies above. This is not being described as a short operation. It's being more described as a war, and it could last for weeks. By the end, there may be many more scenes like this.
Sam Hawley: When Israel began its strikes against Iran, it took the Iranian regime and its residents largely by surprise. But the Israeli people also had no idea what their leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, was about to embark on. Today, Middle East correspondent Eric Tlozek on the ground in Israel. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Eric, we'll discuss in a moment what's happening on the ground in Iran, but you're in Jerusalem at the moment, and you've been reporting from Tel Aviv. Tell me what is life like in Israel at the moment?
Eric Tlozek: Sam, Israel has something called the Home Front Command, which is like a liaison office of the military that deals with the civilian population. And they've put in place restrictions on public gatherings, on which shops and businesses can trade, and also recommended that people stay off the roads, limit travel between cities and remain near shelters and protected spaces. So that means that there's not very much traffic. Most people are staying near their homes. A lot of businesses have been closed. The streets and parks and things like that are a lot less busy than they'd normally be in summer. And in the evenings when the barrages have been coming over, most people are staying at home. So they can get either to a public shelter or to what are called safe rooms in most people's buildings or houses. So there's reinforced concrete rooms in most buildings that people go to when they're given the warning that an Iranian missile strike is on its way.
Sam Hawley: How much warning do they get, Eric, to get into those bunkers?
News reporting, Eric Tlozek: Well, the
Eric Tlozek: military's been sending out a warning about half an hour prior to the missiles arriving. And then there's specific sirens in each city that will sound if it's projected that one of the missiles will land in that city. And there's also about a 10 minute warning as well that comes out. And interestingly, the Israeli military has said today that's going to stop the half an hour warning because people are finding it a bit confusing. And it's going to start at just the 10 minute warning. So people are going to get 10 minutes notice that there's a missile strike on its way. And then they've got that 10 minutes to get into their safe areas before the sirens might start up and the actual barrage begins. And you can actually see the barrages passing over to the north of Jerusalem. And there's no alert for Jerusalem, but you see the big wave of missiles coming over in the sky north of Jerusalem and interceptors coming up from the plain down and towards Tel Aviv to start doing what are called exo-atmospheric interceptions. So some of the Israeli systems actually intercept the ballistic missiles above the Earth's atmosphere. And then you get this kind of burst of color and light very, very high up in the sky when one of those occurs. So you can see them in the night sky as the barrages come over, particularly the ones that have been targeting Haifa and Tel Aviv.
Sam Hawley: Yeah. And how many of these missiles are actually getting through, do you know? Is it clear how much damage has been caused at this point in Israel itself?
Eric Tlozek: No, because the Israeli authorities are always keen for you to focus your coverage on any missiles that might have hit a civilian area like a residential building. Many of the strikes we've been going to have hit residential buildings. But the Israeli military said yesterday that it believes 90 to 95 percent of the strikes have targeted military and intelligence facilities. So and those are the ones we can't get anywhere near. They maintain a pretty heavy cordon around them. And it's also illegal under the censorship restrictions in Israel to report on damage to those kind of sites. So you won't see any reporting in the local media. We can't get close to those sites and we don't know the extent to which they've been damaged. And those are the sites that the Iranian military says it's been focusing on. So that accords with what the Israeli military is saying. They are mentioning air force bases, intelligence bases, weapons factories, the oil refinery in Haifa. The Israelis did actually confirm that that was hit and damaged and three people died there. And also the Weizmann Research Institute, which is near Tel Aviv, which is an area that does all sorts of scientific research, but that Iran claims was linked to some Israeli military programs. That's also been badly damaged. So we know that we know that the damage is probably more extensive than what we're just seeing, you know, from these residential sites that have been hit.
Sam Hawley: All right, well, Eric, let's now consider more deeply the decision by Benjamin Netanyahu to launch these strikes, what that means for his leadership and for the people of Israel. What do we know about whether Israelis actually support this conflict with Iran?
Eric Tlozek: Well, to us, people on the streets are saying they believe this was necessary. So they seem to have been convinced by Benjamin Netanyahu's rhetoric about Iran, you know, being an imminent threat. And also that this the belief that Iran was racing towards a nuclear bomb. That's something that's even though that's contradicted by a recent U.S. intelligence assessment and the International Atomic Energy Agency also said that its reports had no evidence of a systemic push by Iran towards a nuclear weapon. What we do know is that Iran was enriching uranium to higher levels than ever before. And Iran had said it was doing that. And it was doing that in response to the U.S. pulling out of the nuclear control deal that Iran had signed and was complying with in 2018. But Israelis seem to believe the rhetoric from Benjamin Netanyahu, also from the Israeli military, that Iran was not only enriching uranium to weapons grade, but that it was also preparing other components that would allow the delivery of a nuclear warhead. So people on the ground have been saying to us we had to do it. It is a heavy price to pay. You know, the civilian impacts are heavy and the unknown military and other impacts as well. But it is a heavy price to pay for a necessary action. And they also have repeated to me this line that Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli politicians keep saying, which is that we're doing this for the rest of the world because we don't want a nuclear Iran.
Sam Hawley: And this has been, hasn't it, a long time ambition of Benjamin Netanyahu. Just tell me about that.
Eric Tlozek: Well, yeah, it's perhaps not surprising that people were ready to believe Benjamin Netanyahu because he has literally been saying this for decades since the 1990s. He has been talking about Iran's nuclear ambitions and warning that it poses a threat to Israel. So it's something that, you know, the Israeli government has been talking about the Israeli political figures. The Israeli military has gamed out these scenarios for years, you know, about how it would attack Iran. It has sought to engage the US in attacks on Iran, you know, for years because, you know, the question is, yes, Israel might have technical superiority, have air superiority, have intelligence superiority over Iran. But it's one thing to be able to attack Iran. It's another thing to kind of have any effective change in Iran based on Israel's strike. So that's now the question for the Israelis. What is their end goal here and what are they trying to achieve beyond, you know, the short term? So I think those questions are still really open.
Sam Hawley: But in a sense, there has been, I guess, a shift in public mood, if you like, to back in Benjamin Netanyahu and his decision on this, because leading up to these strikes, there's been mass protests on the streets. He has not been a popular leader, if you like.
Eric Tlozek: No, that's right. He's got about support of maybe a quarter of the population in terms of the polling for his party. And he's had massive, sustained protests against not just his handling of the war in Gaza, but also an ongoing corruption trial that he's actually in at the moment. You know, he keeps having to appear in court to testify on these multiple charges of related to corruption allegations. And, you know, prior to that, he was also facing allegations of an attempted takeover of Israel's democratic institutions. So he was accused of trying to weaken Israel's high court and also, you know, many of the kind of key safeguards in the Israeli democracy, like public officers, like the attorney general. So those kind of moves have been hugely controversial and unpopular in Israel and have led to allegations that, you know, Benjamin Netanyahu has been acting like an autocrat and has been weakening Israeli democracy. And, you know, the launch of these attacks against Iran at this time is seen by some Israelis, particularly those critical of Benjamin Netanyahu, as perhaps another attempt by the prime minister to keep conflicts ongoing at a high intensity that enable him to stay in office for longer.
Sam Hawley: All right, well, Eric, on the other side of this, of course, are the Iranian civilians. It is so much harder for us to get a real handle on what is happening there, isn't it? Because foreign journalists aren't allowed to report from there. Censorship is really, really tight.
Eric Tlozek: That's right. Iran's got a highly controlled media environment and it's also restricted Internet access in recent days. So it said it's doing that to to stop Israeli intelligence operations. But it also makes it really difficult to get information out about what's happening. People, ordinary Iranians, are also very scared, you know, to provide information about what's going on because there's the risk of being jailed by the Iranian government. There's a whole range of restrictions and difficulties in in getting information from Iran. So to get a clear picture, we really have to rely on a whole range of different sources. And even then, we're still we're still wondering in many cases about the extent of the impacts, how many of them are in civilian areas. What is the true civilian death toll? We simply don't know. The Iranian government released a figure two days ago saying 224 people had been killed and more than 1200 injured. But there's other sources that suggest the toll is higher and the Iranian government is kind of artificially keeping it low to make it seem like, you know, it's got a better handle on things than it really does.
Sam Hawley: Yeah, the Israeli targets are really quite widespread now, aren't they? It started with military leaders, scientists, nuclear sites. But now we've seen state TV hit, oil and gas facilities. We've seen these images of really packed roads, civilians trying to flee.
Eric Tlozek: Yeah. And Tehran has been hit very intensely on successive days. And that includes residential areas, upscale parts of north Tehran, working class parts of the east. We've seen whole residential buildings knocked down. So, you know, there's a fear amongst many Iranians that the strikes will be much more widespread and much less targeted to military facilities. So, you know, we know that a number of scientists have been targeted in residential areas, government officials, military officials. And we know that, as you said, oil and gas infrastructure, but not just the big export infrastructure, but fuel depots for domestic fuel consumption, meaning it's difficult for Iranians to get petrol now, oil depots for power generation and gas and things like that. So it looks like Israel's attempting a campaign to not only weaken Iran militarily, but to also make conditions difficult within Iran. And that could be an attempt to further put pressure on the government. And it coincides with the statements by the Israeli officials saying, you know, Iranians should rise up and topple the government. So clearly trying to put more pressure on there.
Sam Hawley: Well, Eric, just tell me, what will you be actually watching for now? How will we know when this is either de-escalating or basically just becoming a lot worse?
Eric Tlozek: Well, Israel seems intent on intensifying even further. So, I mean, what I'll be watching for is do the attacks shift even more to key officials within the government? Does Israel's goal become openly, you know, and actively changing the Iranian government, toppling the theocratic regime? And also the key question is, will the US become directly involved? It's been helping defend Israel by shooting down Iran's ballistic missiles. But will it start participating in attacks against Iran directly? That that would trigger a broader response from Iran and Iran's proxies like the Shia militia. They have the ability to attack US bases in the region. Iran could also attack US bases in the Gulf. It could stop shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, closing off one fifth of the world's oil traffic. It could also attack infrastructure in the Gulf states and broaden this conflict and make the impacts much more widespread, then raising the stakes even more.
Sam Hawley: Eric Tlozek is an ABC Middle East correspondent who is currently in Jerusalem. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead and Adair Sheppard. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Israel's targeting of Palestinian journalists in Gaza weakens its 'trust us' approach
In a glossy document it prepared for the world's media to consume, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) laid out evidence it claimed justified the killing of a high-profile Palestinian journalist in Gaza. But if the IDF expected that material to be swallowed without question, it was sorely mistaken — particularly given the targeting of journalists is a war crime under international law. Scepticism regarding anything Israel has to say about its conduct in Gaza has spread far and wide. It's a phenomenon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself has realised, holding rare press conferences in recent days to target what he calls a "global campaign of lies" against Israel. But the "trust us" mentality employed by Israeli authorities has long lost its power after 22 months of death and destruction in Gaza. In the hours after the IDF killed Al Jazeera correspondent Anas Al-Sharif, described by his colleagues as one of the bravest journalists in Gaza, officials once again published documents claimed to link him with Hamas. One of the records purportedly showed Al-Sharif was a Hamas "team commander" from 2013 to at least 2019. The other suggested he was paid $200 by Hamas in 2017. A third item, said to be a Hamas phone directory, was also included. The reproduced information was provided without any detail other than that it was "obtained during ground operations in Gaza at two separate locations", according to the IDF's international spokesperson on social media. "What we have presented publicly is only a small, declassified portion of our intelligence on al-Sharif leading up to the strike," he posted. Al-Sharif had always denied the allegations against him. Al Jazeera had too. The way the IDF presented the information demanded those reading it to trust that it was accurate and genuine. The Israeli military ratcheted up its allegations against Al-Sharif following the criticism of those documents, publishing photos of the journalist with senior Hamas members, including its former leader Yahya Sinwar. Sinwar was killed by the Israeli forces in October 2024. "Only a terrorist sits in the gatherings of terrorists," the IDF's Arabic spokesperson posted on X. There was no information about where or when the photos were taken, or in what context Al-Sharif was seen with the Hamas officials. The IDF wouldn't comment. The BBC reported Al-Sharif had done some work with Hamas's media unit prior to the war, but the ABC hasn't been able to confirm that. Despite this, Israeli authorities provided no information to justify why other Al Jazeera journalists were killed in the same strike, which targeted a clearly marked media tent near the Al Shifa Hospital. Their names are Mohammed Qreiqeh, Ibrahim Zaher, Moamen Aliwa and Mohammed Noufal. Therein lies the problem. Israel has faced repeated accusations it has deliberately targeted Palestinian journalists trying to tell the story of its war in Gaza — the few journalists able to report firsthand, given Israel bans all foreign media from independently accessing the strip. Israel says the ban is for the safety of the international media. In mid-2024 another Al Jazeera correspondent, Ismail Al-Ghoul, and his cameraman, Rami Al-Rifi, were killed in a strike by Israeli forces. Again, the IDF claimed Al-Ghoul was a Hamas operative, but provided no detail about why Al-Rifi was targeted as well. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said the evidence Israel relied on to support its claim Al-Ghoul was a member of the militant group, which is a proscribed terrorist organisation under Australian law, was riddled with inconsistencies. The records suggested Al-Ghoul was a ranking member of Hamas's military wing in 2007, when he was just 10 years old. But another line item said he had only been recruited in 2014, RSF said. The organisation reported Israel's military had responded to its questions about the inconsistencies by saying it couldn't be held responsible for Hamas's shoddy record keeping. The Committee to Protect Journalists says at least 186 journalists have been killed since the start of the war in Gaza in October 2023. The UN puts that figure even higher at 242. These are the people responsible for documenting death and destruction on a scale not seen by the world for decades, and showing the horrors of war Israel does not want beamed around the globe. They have been the first on the scene when Israeli strikes have torn through schools and tent communities providing shelter to displaced Palestinians, and have seen the bodies of lifeless aid seekers shot whilst clamouring to secure food rushed past them into makeshift morgues. For every journalist like Anas Al-Sharif, killed with a flimsy public dossier of evidence and following months of blatant threats and mockery directed at him by the IDF, many more have been targeted without any attempt at justification. Israeli authorities reject almost all news coming out of Gaza as Hamas propaganda, despite refusing to allow foreign media in to do the work themselves. It's a convenient position to take. On Sunday, Netanyahu said he had directed the IDF to facilitate access to international press — but, as has been the case throughout the war, this would only be under the strict supervision of Israeli soldiers in designated areas. These are highly controlled and choreographed missions, designed to show the world parts of Gaza Israel believes will shore up support for its offensive in the strip. Last week, ABC News was granted access to one of these "embeds" for the first time since the war began — travelling just inside the Gaza border to an aid depot. Nothing was seen of the destruction beyond its fences. For that, international organisations rely on Palestinians to help tell the story. The "trust us" approach from Israel has been shown to be deeply flawed before. In late 2023, the IDF published video of its then-chief spokesman Rear Admiral Daniel Hagari underneath the Rantisi Hospital in Gaza City. One part of the video showed Hagari pointing to a calendar plastered on the wall which he said recorded guard shifts for Hamas terrorists. Arabic speakers quickly picked up that the writing on the calendar translated to days of the week and not the names of any individuals — and the IDF said Hagari corrected the record soon after. In March 2024, the IDF laid siege to the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City — the same compound which would be the site of Al-Shira's targeted killing almost 18 months later. The IDF and domestic intelligence agency Shin Bet arrested hundreds at the site, including many doctors and health workers. In the hours after the operation, the IDF released a collage of photos of 358 people it said it had detained — but was forced to issue a correction 14 hours later that due to a "human error" some of those featured had not actually been arrested. In March 2025, the IDF faced scathing criticism for killing 15 Palestinian Red Crescent Society paramedics and emergency responders from Gaza's Civil Defense Agency in the south of the strip. Israel's military had vehemently insisted the convoy of ambulances had approached troops without their emergency lights, prompting soldiers to open fire. Days later, video recorded by one of the killed paramedics emerged refuting that. It showed red lights flashing as the group raced along a bombed-out road to help colleagues. Israel continued to insist Hamas operatives were in the convoy, but only named one of them. These are just three examples, and while very different to the circumstances surrounding the killing of Al-Sharif and his colleagues, they show why scepticism abounds. Aside from attacking journalists having a chilling effect, there is the important issue of it being a crime under international law. Additional protocols to the Geneva conventions, which outline humanitarian protections during wars, state that journalists covering wars are entitled to protection. In the same way that Israel claims hospitals in Gaza, for example, lose their protected status under international law when used as shelters for combatants like Hamas, the IDF will argue journalists on the Hamas payroll are also fair targets. But this is where the issue of the strength and plausibility of evidence once more comes to the fore. And it's where Israel is playing the role of judge, jury and executioner and demanding the international community back it in. In addition to what Israel claims shows Al-Sharif was a Hamas operative, Israeli officials are also opposed to the operations of his employer, Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera is one of the only news organisations broadcasting from Gaza around the world due to its network of correspondents there. Other outlets, such as the ABC, rely on freelancers to help gather stories and interviews. Laws prevent Al Jazeera from operating in Israel, and it's been taken off the air. Local authorities argue the Qatari-based network it is a mouthpiece for terrorists, something Al Jazeera unsurprisingly and categorically denies. There was an irony that in the early stages of the January ceasefire, while weekly hostage exchanges were taking place, Israeli television networks were relaying live broadcasts of Al Jazeera Arabic on their own channels. The work of people like Anas Al-Sharif, reporting on the handover of hostages such as Agam Berger, was beamed across Israel at the same time as it was banned across Israel. In Hostage Square in Tel Aviv, his reporting was shown on the big screen while Israelis gasped at the sight and spectacle Hamas made of the event. It was work even Israelis wanted to see, while their government wanted it blocked. And it's work under serious threat if journalists continue to be targeted in future.

Sky News AU
6 hours ago
- Sky News AU
Democrats rip JD Vance for fishing with British foreign secretary in latest bizarre attack; Republicans hit back
The Democratic National Committee went after Vice President JD Vance for fishing on a private lake with British Foreign Secretary David Lammy during Vance's official trip to the United Kingdom. Republicans were quick to respond to what appears to be the latest in a series of attacks by Democrats against the vice president over outdoor activities and family outings Vance mixes in during his rigorous official travel schedule. The DNC War Room issued a press release Wednesday titled "VACATION VANCE AT IT AGAIN: Vance Fished 'Illegally' With UK Foreign Secretary While Americans Drown in Sky-High Costs." Vance and Lammy met at the foreign secretary's official country residence, known as Chevening House, located south of London, on Friday for talks centered on the Israel-Hamas conflict and Russia's war in Ukraine. They went fishing on the estate grounds before their scheduled meeting. Vance briefly joked to reporters that the "one strain on the special relationship" he has with Lammy "is that all of my kids caught a fish, but the foreign secretary did not." The vice president soon delved into more serious topics, including telling reporters that, unlike the U.K., the United States has "no plans to recognize a Palestinian state" given the "lack of a functional government" in Gaza. Their meeting came a week before President Donald Trump's upcoming high-stakes meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. In its release on Wednesday, the DNC charged, "Vance is living it up on his summer holiday — on the taxpayers' dime — all while working families face sky-high inflation and the largest cuts to health care and food assistance in American history." Kiersten Pels, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said in a statement to Fox News Digital, "The DNC's donors are OK with funding press releases on a fishing rod license? They might want to pull their money out now before the last of it vanishes down the drain." U.K. outlets reported that Lammy did not buy a valid fishing license before the outing with Vance. In a statement to Sky News, the British Foreign Office said the secretary "has written to the Environment Agency over an administrative oversight that meant the appropriate licences had not been acquired for fishing on a private lake as part of a diplomatic engagement at Chevening House last week." The agency reportedly requires rod licenses for fishing of freshwater species in England and Wales for people 13 or above. During his visit to the U.K. last week, Vance also gave a brief address to U.S. troops stationed at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire. The DNC claimed Vance spoke to troops "for only six minutes before returning to his $10,000 per week luxury Cotswolds manor." The release also took issue with Vance allegedly "using public resources" earlier this month "so he could do boating on his birthday." "Vance fished 'illegally' in the United Kingdom, potentially costing the foreign secretary a £2,000 fine. Vance even had former Chancellor George Osborne plan his vacation's social agenda, including relaxing in the 'Hamptons of the UK,'" the release said. The DNC further charged that Trump and Vance "ripped away health care from 17 million Americans, slashed food assistance for over 22 million families, and unleashed economic chaos on the American people — all to give their billionaire friends and donors another round of massive tax handouts." "While working families struggle to get by, it's clear where Vance's loyalties lie — and it's not with them," the DNC wrote. The latest attack comes after Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, bemoaned Vance's recent visit to Disneyland with his children. "Hope you enjoy your family time," Newsom wrote on social media. "The families you're tearing apart certainly won't." In response, Vance wrote, "Had a great time, thanks." Critics also attempted to paint Vance as entitled after the vice president's security detail had an Ohio river's water levels raised to accommodate a kayaking trip he and his family took to celebrate his 41st birthday. The U.S. Secret Service made the request to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers so that motorized watercraft and emergency personnel could operate safely. Before his political career, Vance notably penned an autobiography, "Hillbilly Elegy," which describes how he was raised by an opioid-addicted mother in Appalachia, joined the Marines and found success at Yale Law School. In a recent interview on "The Katie Miller Podcast," Vance revealed that reserving "sacred time" with family allows him to balance his official duties with the duties of being a husband and father. "It's possible to do it even in my job," he said. "Yes, if like a war breaks out, then sometimes you have to cancel even the sacred time. But we've been pretty good about making sure that I have at least a couple of hours with my family every single day." Originally published as Democrats rip JD Vance for fishing with British foreign secretary in latest bizarre attack; Republicans hit back

News.com.au
6 hours ago
- News.com.au
PM making ‘real mess' with Palestine pledge, opposition says
Sussan Ley says Anthony Albanese is 'making a real mess' after Hamas praised his decision to recognise Palestinian statehood. Hamas, the Islamist militants behind the October 7 attacks on Israel in 2023, overnight issued statements to Australian media saying it welcomed any support to 'help the Palestinian people achieve their national goals'. The group - a registered terrorist organisation in Australia - runs Gaza, where Israel has waged a 22-month war in a bid to wipe it out and rescue hostages taken the October 7 assault. The Opposition Leader said on Thursday the Prime Minister needed to rethink his decision. 'On the same day, a listed terror organisation calls our Prime Minister a hero, while our closest ally, the US, says that these actions are going to make peace in the region less likely,' Ms Ley told Nine's Today. 'So it's really quite extraordinary, because remember, the Prime Minister used justification for this decision by saying Hamas would not be involved. 'And I saw the Treasurer yesterday saying, oh, Hamas will have no role in a future Palestinian state. Really? As if we can control these things?' She said she was 'really concerned because, like all Australians, I want to see Gazans fed, the hostages released and the war to come to an end'. 'But this decision is opposed by the Coalition for these reasons, and that's why we will revoke it in government, because it doesn't bring about a two-state solution, it doesn't make the world a safer place,' Ms Ley said. Hamas supporting recognition is not a surprise – Palestinian statehood is a core goal for the group. So too is the destruction of Israel, meaning it does not support a two-state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians living within sovereign, internationally recognised borders. The Albanese government has rejected the criticism, with a spokesperson saying Mr Albanese's move is against the goals of Hamas and in line with broader regional efforts to 'isolate' it. 'What Australia has done is contribute international momentum towards a two-state solution, which Hamas opposes,' the spokesperson said. 'We are supporting the Arab League's efforts to isolate Hamas. 'Hamas always tries to manipulate facts for their own propaganda.'