Latest news with #SixDayWar
Sydney Morning Herald
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Sydney Morning Herald
Bold call proves Albanese is qualified for the job
By recognising the state of Palestine, our government has joined the international community in decrying the immorality of the death and starvation of a nation under the guise of self-defence (' Albanese accuses Netanyahu of being in denial ', August 12). The Coalition has omitted morality, once more, in its response to the government's decision. Nothing new there: think robo-debt, refugees, the Biloela family, among other examples of its compassion. Well done prime minister, Australia can hold her head high. Selwyn Glynn, Paddington (Qld) Albanese's bold and courageous moves on Palestine in defiance of the US and Israel certainly put to bed the trope so loved by the opposition and the Murdoch press that he is weak and indecisive (' Breaking ranks is a defining moment ', August 12). Andrew Macintosh, Cromer News of the targeted killing by Israeli armed forces of journalist Anas al-Sharif is surely a chilling message from the Israeli government that it is not interested in upholding international law (' Israel kills journalist, four colleagues in Gaza air strike', August 12). If Israel thought Mr al-Sharif was an agent of Hamas it should and could have arrested him and put him on trial. Instead, Israel chose extrajudicial murder, not only of Mr al-Sharif, but his colleagues. 'Redefining civilian targets as military ones', as Dennis Glover wrote in these pages last week (' Lessons from the A-bomb remain unheeded, 80 years on', August 7) is dishonest, and morally and intellectually dubious, and undermines respect for both the law and humanity, not to mention the ability of journalists to freely report on what they see. Doubtless the reporting of Anas al-Sharif was what the government of Israel did not want us to see, and it is why his killing must be condemned by all of us who understand the importance of independent media in a democratic society. Colin Hesse, Nowra Daniel Aghion, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, says 'Australia is now recognising as a state an entity with no agreed borders' (' We will rebuild Gaza ', August 12). Mr Aghion, Palestine does have borders. That was established in 1949, the borders being the Armistice Line, more recently called the Green Line. You know, the borders that existed in May 1967? The borders that Israel invaded in June 1967 in the 'Six Day War'. Have a look at any map and you can clearly see those borders. Gay O'Connor, Manly While I congratulate the government for its long-overdue recognition of the Palestinian state (' Both sides slam Labor over recognition moves ', August 12), I agree with Palestinian activists that a far better strategy would be for Australian to start applying maximum pressure on Israel, including through boycotts, lobbying other governments to reduce their military supplies to the country, and sanctioning any company or organisation with economic or military connections to the growing settlements in the West Bank. If we announce recognition but do nothing to change the status quo, the existence of the state of a Palestine will be for the most part an illusion – a subjugated people existing within broken lines on a map, rather than a thriving population living in dignity, and respecting the rights of its neighbours. Renee Chartres, Cremorne Albanese must be on the right path. In internecine battles, as every parent knows, justice has been served when nobody is happy. Elisabeth Goodsall, Wahroonga Israel's government has twisted our recognition of Palestinian statehood into a win for Hamas. Netanyahu refuses to acknowledge that Israel's world standing has diminished greatly under his leadership. At last many Western leaders have taken a united stand against his criminal barbarity. His trite criticism of Australia for doing so indicates the importance of the PM's decision. Gerardine Grace, Leura Albanese says 'we will rebuild Gaza'. Meanwhile, the government is struggling to build enough housing for its own citizens. By what stroke of magic will they be able to rebuild an entire country? Pigs might fly. David Lloyd, Thornleigh Finding home Your writer Amal Naser, whose grandparents survived the Nakba and were expelled from Palestine in 1948, makes an impassioned plea to our government to help stop the war in Gaza (' Recognition is a mere distraction ', August 12). I agree with her that the death and destruction must stop. But stories of dispossession and violence are also common among Israelis. Like Naser, about 90 per cent of Israelis can claim third-generation refugee status. Their grandparents or parents were expelled from European countries, their homes stolen, their citizenship revoked and their families killed. A million Jews were expelled from Middle Eastern countries like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen after 1948 with the same consequences. They found refuge in a new country. They do not have a right of return. Doreen Finkelstein, Croydon My large and extended family were expelled from Arab lands, with no hope of return, in the 1950s because of our religion and ethnicity. We settled all over the world. My parents were refugees yet despite that, I certainly do not consider myself, or my children, second or third-generation refugees. Manuela Epstein, Pyrmont Like the weekly protests she helps organise and speaks at, Amal Naser's article makes no criticism of Hamas and its ultimate goal – the elimination of Israel. That omission is what keeps me an observer, not a participant, at her protests, and makes me read her passionate and compelling article with just a touch of scepticism. Allen Greer, Sydney Untouchable Israel The murderous attack on the King David Hotel by Zionist extremists in 1946 is but one example of the violence that preceded Israel's contentious establishment in 1948 and has continued ever since. How disturbing, then, that Prime Minister Netanyahu's recalcitrance is fomenting antisemitism, rather than ameliorating it. Peter Hartcher's devastating indictment of the Israeli PM, arguing that he is 'making Israel untouchable' is widely shared (' Netanyahu cares only for himself', August 12). It includes the fears of many Jewish people disturbed by his warmongering determination to stay in power, his lack of care for the lives of innocents, including those of his own soldiers and citizens, his government's smashing of life, limb and property in Gaza and, in all, his failure to contemplate a two-state solution in a Middle East incessantly plagued by brutal conflict. Ron Sinclair, Windradyne Human cost A young girl in Gaza was recently shown on the international news, trying to play a board game with her feet because her arms had been amputated above the elbow. The heartbreaking image indeed said a thousand words: she is unable to eat, drink, dress herself, draw a picture or engage in most normal childhood activities unassisted. UNICEF estimates 3000 to 4000 Gazan children have lost at least one limb, with Gaza having the world's highest rate of child amputees relative to population size. What of those who have no surviving family to care for them? Please, let's focus on ameliorating the devastation to innocent lives, especially the children, hostages and other civilians. In Albert Einstein's words: 'We can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them'. Great respect to Dr Victoria Rose, Dr Graeme Groom and the other medical personnel working in the most egregious of circumstances (' The doctors bearing witness to Gaza ', August 10). Humanitarianism is above politics and doesn't take sides; it acts justly and with care to protect, improve and save imperilled lives, wherever the need may be. Dare we hope that the amputee children may be compassionately expedited by those wielding power to at least be assisted with prosthetics? Barbara Chapman, South Yarra (Vic) Get real on climate change Claire Snyder is dead right in her assertion that we should be aiming for real zero rather than net zero, and provides examples of companies that are well on the way to doing so (' Forget net zero. We need 'real zero' ', August 12). The net zero concept allows companies to buy carbon credits to offset their emissions. Woodside's North West Shelf project, to which Environment Minister Murray Watt has given conditional approval, blew its emissions limit in 2023-24 and used carbon credits to offset this. When claiming offsets, companies usually only offset their operations and not the emissions from the product itself. According to figures from the Australia Institute, up to 75 per cent of Australia's carbon credits do not result in real emissions reductions, so, as Twiggy Forrest has said, 'now is the time to walk away from net zero 2050. That hasn't been anything really but a con to maintain fossil fuels'. Peter Nash, Fairlight Claire Snyder's article cherry-picks a small selection of examples and proclaims that we should forget net zero because real zero is in reach. Is this really credible across the economy? Fortescue, one of her case studies, is struggling and failing to deliver on its ambitious plans, which doesn't bode well for the 'real zero now' movement. While environment groups may not like the real politick, if Australia did drop net zero for real zero, there would be a real risk that climate action would lose its social license when the economic and social impacts hit the regular person. We already see that in regional communities today that are fighting against renewable energy projects. Undermining the fragile consensus around net zero to push for the perfect 'real zero' may very well lead to the opposite of what Claire Snyder wants. Ash Roth, Sydney It's no surprise that Advance has taken the next step down the Trumpian road, threatening Coalition members with 'dump net zero or we dump you' (' Right-wing group targets 'weakling' Liberals ', August 11). Bullying tactics have been remarkably effective for Trump in turning the Republican Party into yes-men and getting him the presidency. The Coalition would like nothing better than to do the same thing here, despite its drubbing at the election under a hard-right leader. George Brandis and others never tire of telling the Coalition that the Australian electoral system favours parties of the centre. Why persist with hard-right politics when the rise of the teals shows they were heading in the wrong direction? The answer probably is that the hard right, or the hard left for that matter, are not for turning, and Trump's astounding success helped by the likes of Fox News has given the right a boost worldwide, which they are intent on increasing. It would be nice to say it couldn't happen here. A year ago, many US citizens would have said it couldn't happen there. Gary Barnes, Mosman Predictable problem Of course Donald Trump is 'a little bothered by the fact' that President Zelensky has to get constitutional approval for a land swap (' Trump praises 'respectful' Putin, criticises Zelensky ahead of crucial summit ', August 12). As someone who blatantly ignores his own constitution, it is beyond Trump's comprehension that others abide by theirs. James Mahoney, McKellar (ACT) Hard housing truth Although underquoting might lead to more competition and result in some bidders paying more than planned, the harsh reality is that there are people prepared to pay the higher price (' Underquoting exposed '). We haven't heard from any sellers disappointed that there property sold for more than expected. Oh no – that sounds like I'm defending real estate agents. Neil Reckord, Gordon (ACT) Like Gerard Baz (Letters, August 12), we spent more than a year researching the local market, and I think we are being unfair to estate agents. In the heat of an auction, prices can be driven to high levels. I recall a villa being sold for $2.67 million when the suburb record was less than $2 million. No one could have predicted that. The remedies suggested by your correspondents amount to private treaty with a stated price. An auction, however, remains the best method of price discovery and maximising vendor returns. John Christie, Oatley Clip course price If licensing cost is a major factor pushing up the price of hairdressing, the solution is not to loosen the regulation, but to lower the cost of the prerequisite courses (' Regulation in NSW overdue for a trim ', August 12). First, let those who already have some training sit a test, like learner drivers get their driving licences, combining knowledge testing and practical testing. Do not force them to go through another Cert III course costing $13,000-28,000 and wasting time. Second, make those courses cheaper for novices. This is where government and industry can co-operate. Very often we hear complaints that regulation stifles economies, with the private sector wanting less scrutiny on their behaviour, service or product standards. What they should advocate is a smarter way to work with regulators. Kim Woo, Mascot Mixed choices When survey respondents are asked to rank alternative government priorities, it's important that the alternatives really are separate. In the latest Resolve Political Monitor, 41 per cent of respondents said they 'believe 'keeping the cost of living low' should be the government's top priority, with 'housing and rental accessibility' a distant second on 10 per cent' (' How inflation hits your hip pocket ', August 12). But isn't it possible that many who opted for 'keeping the cost of living low' would have considered 'housing and rental accessibility' to be part of this, and that many who opted for 'housing and rental accessibility' would have seen this as part of 'keeping the cost of living low'? Murray Goot, Macquarie University Billy goats The Troll Bar under that bridge is a great idea, and what a joyless bunch of burghers they are at North Sydney Council (' Sydney Council banishes 'troll bar' from under the Harbour Bridge ', August 12). Just imagine the frisson of having to answer a really hard question to gain entrance to the bar like: 'What is an acceptable cost overrun for rebuilding a public swimming pool?' or 'How much should you charge out-of-towners to watch a fireworks show?' Seriously, I fail to see how such a bar could detract from the heritage of our bridge. How sad that the pathetic fun police rule that part of the city: the trolls should gobble you up. Yours gruffly. Russ Couch, Woonona From the small bar epicentre of the inner west, I'm at a loss to understand the thinking behind the veto of a small bar under the Harbour Bridge, citing a lack of connection with the Scandinavian 'troll' myth. Of course, Opera House architect Jan Utzon immediately springs to mind. Might I suggest resubmitting the request with the name Grinch Bar – it seems a good fit given the attitudes of our northern neighbours. Janet Argall, Hurlstone Park The North Sydney NIMBYs have morphed into NOTUMBYs (No trolls under my bridgey). I suggest the proposed business be called Whine Bar – a nod to the locals who could meet there to mull over their next campaign. Donald Proctor, Cremorne
West Australian
4 days ago
- Politics
- West Australian
Paul Murray: Many Australians only became familiar with Gaza after Israel October 7 terror attacks
What exactly is the Palestine that Anthony Albanese has wanted to 'recognise' ever since he was a radically left-wing student at Sydney University in the 1980s? Because the devil will be in the detail. And Albanese needs to be very clear with the Australian public, because a lot of those people who marched over the Sydney Harbour Bridge last weekend think Palestine includes Israel. And that's why they chant: From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. Between the river and the sea lies Gaza, the West Bank and the modern sovereign state of Israel, formed in 1948 from part of a geopolitical entity known at the time as the Palestine Mandate. Israel was accepted into the United Nations the following year. The rest of the mandate territory, the Gaza strip and the West Bank, went under the control of Egypt and Jordan respectively. Both were occupied by Israel after it fought the Six Day War against those countries and Syria in June, 1967. Many Australians only became familiar with Gaza after October 7, 2023 when the Hamas terrorist organisation that has controlled it since 2007 raided Israel, killing 1200 people and capturing 251 hostages, of which only 148 have been returned alive. But they are maybe less familiar with the West Bank, which since 1994 has been controlled by the highly corrupt Palestinian Authority. The authority is run by Fatah, the biggest political party in the Palestine Liberation Organisation, after it finally split with Hamas in 2007. Albanese – who was a founder of the Parliamentary Friends of Palestine group in 1999 – and his fellow leftist, Foreign Minister Penny Wong, say the geographical state they intend Australia to recognise includes both Gaza and the West Bank. And they say that our recognition would be conditional on the security of the state of Israel suggesting that Albanese thinks he can hold back the ideological tide in the Middle East forever threatening to sweep Israel away. Or does he? The fine print detailing Labor's steady campaign to nudge Australia from its longstanding bipartisan position on Palestine and into a new one which isolates Israel, shows that the land included in our 'recognition' contains what is known as East Jerusalem as part of the West Bank. Both Israel and those purporting that Palestine is a recognisable state – which remains legally unclear – declare that Jerusalem is their capital. The PLO was based in East Jerusalem until the 1967 war when they were pushed out to Jordan, which later expelled them. In 1980, Israel's Knesset passed a law proclaiming all of Jerusalem as the country's capital. The UN Security Council has declared the annexation of East Jerusalem 'null and void' and most countries, including Australia, do not recognise Israeli sovereignty over it. Some 360,000 Palestinians live in East Jerusalem, roughly 37 per cent of Israel's Palestinian population. And it will be a major sticking point in any moves for a two-state solution. However, neither Hamas nor Israel supports a two-state solution, something that is conveniently sidelined by the Albanese Government. This push for early recognition is not a change of heart by Labor brought about by recent pictures of malnourished Gazan children. Wong's stealth campaign can be traced back to early last year – with the October 7 invasion only months before and Israel retaliating strongly against Hamas – to expose her ambitions. It is wrong, however, to report that the Albanese Government position on recognition has been 'when, not if' since last year. That position crystalised only recently in most opportunistic fashion. Wong now repeatedly says that it has been her position since last year – carelessly regurgitated by the media as fact – but there is no public record of her using those words until this month. It's typical of the way Labor shifts position. They say 'we've been absolutely clear' about X and Y when they've been anything but. In an April, 2024 speech Wong said the international community was 'now considering the question of Palestinian statehood as a way of building momentum towards a two-state solution'. Really? 'There are always those who claim recognition is rewarding an enemy,' Wong said, but asserted that sound position was wrong. 'First, because Israel's own security depends on a two-state solution. There is no long-term security for Israel unless it is recognised by the countries of its region. 'But the normalisation agenda that was being pursued before October 7 cannot proceed without progress on Palestinian statehood.' Both assertions, stated as fact, are obviously arguable propositions. But they signalled Wong was pursuing recognition, which had not previously been the policy of any Australian Government. It fell in line with Labor's new platform from its August 2023 national conference – before the Hamas assault – calling on the Albanese Government to recognise Palestine. So nothing to do with starving children, just the achievement of a long-held Labor Left ambition, incrementally. Which makes Wong's despicable assertion this week that there is a need for haste unless there would be 'nothing left of Palestine to recognise' even more egregious. The West Bank and East Jerusalem have been untouched by the fighting since October 7. Wong started this process talking about recognition being contingent on Hamas having no role in Gaza, but now clearly wants to vote at the UN by September to support it with the terrorists still in charge and refusing to disarm. Is that really what most Australians want? On July 27 on the ABC's Insiders, Albanese was pushed by David Speers on the conditions for recognition: 'So at the moment you're not convinced right now that Hamas would not be involved?' Albanese: 'Not so much that, but you'd need guarantees of that, and you need a structure. There's been no elections in the Palestinian Authority for a long period of time.' Speers: 'Does that need to happen before you recognise a Palestinian state?' Albanese: 'Well, you need to consider all of the circumstances at any particular time, and you need to make sure that a decision takes forward the operation of two states effectively.' Speers: 'It doesn't sound like you're about to do this in September or this year, listening to the preconditions that you're laying out.' Albanese: 'Look, what we will do is we'll make a decision based upon the time. Is the time right now? Are we about to imminently do that? No, we are not.' Speers: But at the General Assembly? Albanese: 'Are we about to do that, no we are not.' And then some people marched over a bridge a week later. But more than 27 million Australians didn't. Activism should not be confused with being right, nor with majority sentiment. Some 60,000 marched over that bridge to support the Indigenous Voice in July 2023 before it died in the referendum three months later. The left always marches. The rest often sit at home and shake their heads – or just don't care. And with the intractable grievances of the Palestinian conflict, that's understandable. Albanese and Wong are now at a dangerous juncture which will test their basic morality. They've already failed the duplicity test. The Hamas leader who ordered the October 7 massacre, Yahya Sinwar, was quoted in messages obtained last year, before his unfortunate death by drone, describing the high civilian death toll in Gaza as 'necessary sacrifices'. He told Hamas leaders and mediators that civilian casualties would benefit the cause more than a ceasefire and instructed since-assassinated political chief Ismail Haniyeh that the deaths of his sons and grandchildren would 'infuse life into the veins of this nation, prompting it to rise to its glory and honour.' And the naïve fools advancing early recognition of Palestine with Hamas still in charge think these maniacs will lay down their arms and move on? So here's a real-world proposition, completely divorced from Albanese and Wong's undergraduate posturing and their gutless reaction to the emoting marchers. If a free state of Palestine means one free of Hamas – as Albanese and his European and Canadian socialist mates profess – then Benjamin Netanyahu is the best thing they have going for them. Who else will take Hamas' arms from them and rid the world of the pernicious system of dictatorial power they have established in Gaza? The UN? Spare us. There are useful idiots and blind collaborators and all shades of appeasers between those points. None should be given any heed. Those advancing this bad idea fall into the latter camp because they are guided by their own domestic political objectives. And that's the real story behind this misguided charade. Australia on Tuesday shamefully turned its back on the remaining hostages – alive and dead – with Wong demanding that their repatriation should wait until the war is over. Hamas must have cheered again. What won't Labor give away of Israel's right to exist to get a gold star from the international choir?
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Israel's move to take over Gaza looks likely to be open-ended occupation
One of Israel's most celebrated images is David Rubinger's photograph of a trio of paratroopers at the newly captured Western Wall in 1967, an event that would mark the beginning of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. You see it when arriving at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport. It has been used to illustrate the Israel Defense Forces' 'values' page, and appears endlessly in the Hebrew media and on pro-Israel sites. It is ironic that at the end of his life the central figure in the picture, Yitzhak Yifat, rejected at least some of the photograph's meaning. Speaking to the Guardian in 2017, with the benefit of five decades of hindsight, he reflected on that conquest. 'I can say that the results of the war were bad. We realised that we had conquered another people. A whole people. And now it seems we cannot now get to a true peace, a real peace,' he said. What was true then remains true today, as Israel's security cabinet has authorised the full occupation once again of Gaza, beginning with Gaza City. While Benjamin Netanyahu has suggested it will be required until Hamas can be replaced, the international community should consider the strong likelihood that Israel will maintain an open-ended control of all of Gaza – a recipe, say critics, for perpetual war. And although the statement from Netanyahu's office describing the decision and its aims does not include the word 'occupation' – with all the international legal obligations that would entail – no one should be in any doubt that this is what is envisaged. Netanyahu's history in politics and diplomacy is one of endless excuses for why Israel should never meet the commitments it made in the Oslo peace process towards real self-determination and a Palestinian state, describing endlessly over the years the lack of a 'partner for peace' or claiming that any Palestinian state would be a threat to Israel. In practical terms, Israel's decision to seize full control of Gaza appears as reckless as it is delusional and inhuman, not least the notion that Israel will maintain control until the 'establishment of an alternative civil administration that is neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority'. As it currently stands, that alternative remains a fiction of Netanyahu's imagination. What will seem more plausible for many will be the far-right finance minister Bezalel Smotrich's unpalatable parsing of the decision on Friday. 'We are erasing the Palestinian state,' he declared, 'first in action and then officially'. In financial terms, as Israeli media have pointed out, the move is likely to place another huge financial burden on a country that has been haemorrhaging money during more than two years of conflict in theatres from Lebanon to Syria, Iran, Yemen and Gaza. Speaking to the rightwing Israel Hayom newspaper this week, Ram Aminach, an expert in Israel's military economics, suggested the cost of taking Gaza under full control could run to almost $6bn in the coming months, with 'incomprehensible costs' associated with sustaining a Palestinian population of 2 million people in a shattered territory. 'Look at the international pressure Israel faces today and multiply that by five, at the least,' he said. 'To ease that pressure, we'll need to take care of the population in Gaza. No international player is going to help pay for that, not while Israel is seen the way it is right now.' And there is an even bigger question: whether Israel has the resources to maintain an occupation that may be long-term. Envisaged, according to briefings to Israeli journalists, as involving five divisions in an operation lasting five to six months, it assumes that the IDF is capable of achieving more than it has in two and a half years of war in which it has been forced to launch multiple operations in areas where it has claimed Hamas was defeated only to see fighters return. Nor is the recent history of military occupations encouraging, not least the US and British experience of insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. That appears, at least in part, to have been in the mind of the IDF's chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, when he made clear his opposition to the plan, suggesting it would lead to the death of the remaining Israeli hostages and greater risk to soldiers in an already exhausted Israeli military from improvised explosive devices. While Zamir has expressed his opposition in private to Netanyahu, others have made the same points publicly, among them the Israeli opposition leader, Yair Lapid, who described the decision as a 'disaster that will lead to many more disasters'. Charging that Netanyahu had been dragged into the decision by his far-right allies who have campaigned for Jewish settlement in Gaza, he described the plan as 'a move that will kill the hostages and many soldiers, will cost Israeli taxpayers tens of billions and will destroy Israel's diplomatic relations'. 'This is exactly what Hamas wanted: for Israel to end up stuck in Gaza without a goal, in a useless occupation, the point of which no one understands,' Lapid said. All of which leaves what will be regarded by many in the international community as the most glaringly problematic issue. While the IDF controls 75% of Gaza, the remaining 25% of territory where the new Netanyahu offensive will be focused is where 80% of Gaza's population has been displaced to. How Israel plans to achieve its full control without a massive increase in civilian deaths in an already starving and desperate Palestinian population is chillingly undescribed. Multiple mass fatality incidents around the Israeli- and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's food distribution sites – where, according to the UN and other aid organisations, Israeli soldiers have killed hundreds of aid seekers – suggests that the IDF should not be counted on to behave humanely when confronted by those civilians. Keir Starmer, the UK prime minister, said on Friday: 'The Israeli government's decision to further escalate its offensive in Gaza is wrong and we urge it to reconsider immediately. This action will do nothing to bring an end to this conflict or to help secure the release of the hostages. It will only bring more bloodshed.'
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Israel's move to take over Gaza looks likely to be open-ended occupation
One of Israel's most celebrated images is David Rubinger's photograph of a trio of paratroopers at the newly captured Western Wall in 1967, an event that would mark the beginning of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. You see it arriving at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport. It has been used to illustrate the Israel Defense Forces' 'values' page, and appears endlessly in the Hebrew media and on pro-Israel sites. It is ironic that at the end of his life the central figure in the picture, Yitzhak Yifat, rejected at least some of the photograph's meaning. Speaking to the Guardian in 2017, with the benefit of five decades of hindsight, he reflected on that conquest. 'I can say that the results of the war were bad. We realised that we had conquered another people. A whole people. And now it seems we cannot now get to a true peace, a real peace,' he said. What was true then remains true today, as Israel's security cabinet has authorised the full occupation once again of Gaza, beginning with Gaza City. While Benjamin Netanyahu has suggested it will be required until Hamas can be replaced, the international community should consider the strong likelihood that Israel will maintain an open-ended control of all of Gaza – a recipe, say critics, for perpetual war. And although the statement from Netanyahu's office describing the decision and its aims is absent the word 'occupation' – with all the international legal obligations that would entail – no one should be in any doubt that this is what is envisaged Netanyahu's history in politics and diplomacy is one of endless excuses for why Israel should never meet the commitments it made in the Oslo peace process towards real self-determination and a Palestinian state, describing endlessly over the years the lack of a 'partner for peace' or claiming that any Palestinian state would be a threat to Israel. In practical terms, Israel's decision to seize full control of Gaza appears as reckless as it is delusional and inhuman, not least the notion that Israel will maintain control until the 'establishment of an alternative civil administration that is neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority'. As it currently stands, that alternative remains a fiction of Netanyahu's imagination. What will seem more plausible for many will be the far-right finance minister Bezalel Smotrich's unpalatable parsing of the decision on Friday. 'We are erasing the Palestinian state,' he declared, 'first in action and then officially.' In financial terms, as Israeli media have pointed out, the move is likely to place another huge financial burden on a country that has been haemorrhaging money during more than two years of conflict in theatres from Lebanon to Syria, Iran, Yemen and Gaza. Speaking to the rightwing Israel Hayom newspaper this week, Ram Aminach, an expert in Israel's military economics, suggested that the cost of taking Gaza under full control could run to almost $6bn in the coming months, with 'incomprehensible costs' associated with sustaining a Palestinian population of 2 million people in a shattered territory. 'Look at the international pressure Israel faces today and multiply that by five, at the least,' he said. 'To ease that pressure, we'll need to take care of the population in Gaza. No international player is going to help pay for that, not while Israel is seen the way it is right now.' And there is an even bigger question: whether Israel has the resources to maintain an occupation that may be long-term. Envisaged, according to briefings to Israeli journalists, as involving five divisions in an operation lasting five to six months, it assumes that the IDF is capable of achieving more than it has in two and a half years of war in which it has been forced to launch multiple operations in areas where it has claimed Hamas was defeated only to see fighters return. Nor is the recent history of military occupations encouraging, not least the US and British experience of insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. That appears, at least in part, to have been in the mind of the IDF's chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, when he made clear his opposition to the plan, suggesting it would lead to the death of the remaining Israeli hostages and greater risk to soldiers in an already exhausted Israeli military from IEDs. While Zamir has expressed his opposition in private to Netanyahu, others have made the same points publicly, among them the Israeli opposition leader, Yair Lapid, who described the decision as a 'disaster that will lead to many more disasters'. Charging that Netanyahu had been dragged into the decision by his far-right allies who have campaigned for Jewish settlement in Gaza, he described the plan as 'a move that will kill the hostages and many soldiers, will cost Israeli taxpayers tens of billions and will destroy Israel's diplomatic relations'. 'This is exactly what Hamas wanted: for Israel to end up stuck in Gaza without a goal, in a useless occupation, the point of which no one understands,' Lapid said. All of which leaves what will be regarded by many in the international community as the most glaringly problematic issue. While the IDF controls 75% of Gaza, the remaining 25% of territory where the new Netanyahu offensive will be focused is where 80% of Gaza's population has been displaced to. How Israel plans to achieve its full control without a massive increase in civilian deaths in an already starving and desperate Palestinian population is chillingly undescribed. Multiple mass fatality incidents around the Israeli- and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation's food distribution sites – where, according to the UN and other aid organisations, Israeli soldiers have killed hundreds of aid seekers – suggests that the IDF should not be counted on to behave humanely when confronted by those civilians. Keir Starmer, the UK prime minister, said on Friday: 'The Israeli government's decision to further escalate its offensive in Gaza is wrong and we urge it to reconsider immediately. This action will do nothing to bring an end to this conflict or to help secure the release of the hostages. It will only bring more bloodshed.'
New York Post
08-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Mamdani visited controversial Brooklyn mosque on campaign trail — just months after the imam called for the annihilation of Israel
Socialist New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani visited a controversial Brooklyn mosque to pray while on the campaign trail — just months after the imam had called for the destruction of Israel. Mamdani posted a picture of himself speaking at the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge, alongside firebrand cleric Sheikh Muhammad Al-Barr, on his social media in January. 'It was a privilege to join Jummah prayers at the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge today,' the socialist nominee said in the post on X dated January 17. Advertisement 3 Zohran Mamdani visited a controversial Brooklyn mosque on the mayoral campaign trail. X / @ZohranKMamdani 3 Imam Muhammad Al-Barr gave a controversial sermon at his Bay Ridge mosque months before Mamdani's visit. 3 Pro-Palestine supporters rally outside of the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge in Brooklyn on February 26, 2025. NEW YORK POST Advertisement Mamdani's visit came just five months after Al-Barr called on Allah in a fiery sermon at his Bay Ridge mosque to 'liberate Palestine from the occupiers and the plunderers.' 'Oh Allah, annihilate those who occupied their lands, and those who betrayed and deserted them, and those who spilled their blood,' the cleric said in Arabic in an August service at the Islamic Society of Bay Ridge's Masjid ibn Umair. Al-Barr, whose last name is also spelled 'Elbar,' also said that 'the mujahideen [Hamas fighters] in Gaza are achieving more than our Arab armies could in 1967 and 1973,' a reference to the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War, respectively.
