Gaza-Israel Conflict | October 2023

[Akbar26]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1859211866330792343

 

[sidkhan2]

(UNSC) resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. This marks the fourth time the Biden administration has vetoed such resolutions since the onset of the current conflict. Here are the key details surrounding this development:

Key Details of the Veto​

1. Resolution Overview: The vetoed resolution sought an "immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire" in Gaza and also called for the release of all hostages held by Hamas. It received 14 votes in favor, with the U.S. being the sole dissenting vote.
2. U.S. Justification: The U.S. government, represented by Deputy Ambassador Robert Wood, stated that it could not support a resolution that did not explicitly link the ceasefire to the immediate release of hostages taken during the conflict. Wood emphasized that "these two critical objectives are fundamentally interconnected."
3. International Reaction: The veto has drawn significant criticism from other UNSC members and humanitarian organizations. Many have expressed frustration over the U.S. stance, viewing it as obstructive to efforts aimed at alleviating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where casualties have reportedly exceeded 44,000 Palestinians due to ongoing military operations.
4. Humanitarian Crisis: The resolution's supporters highlighted the urgent need for a ceasefire to address the deteriorating humanitarian conditions in Gaza, where access to food, water, and medical supplies is severely restricted due to the ongoing conflict.
5. Political Context: This veto reflects broader geopolitical dynamics and the U.S.'s unwavering support for Israel amidst escalating violence in Gaza. Critics argue that this position undermines international efforts to achieve peace and stability in the region.

Broader Implications​

• Continued Violence: The U.S. veto is likely to prolong hostilities in Gaza, as it signals a lack of consensus on how to address the crisis effectively.
• Humanitarian Access: Without a ceasefire, humanitarian access will remain severely limited, exacerbating the suffering of civilians caught in the conflict.
• International Relations: The decision may strain relationships between the U.S. and other nations advocating for immediate action to protect civilians and promote peace in Gaza.

Conclusion​

The U.S. veto of the UNSC resolution calling for a ceasefire underscores ongoing tensions surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and highlights significant challenges in achieving a diplomatic resolution. As humanitarian conditions worsen in Gaza, calls for international intervention and support are likely to intensify, emphasizing the need for urgent action to protect civilian lives and restore peace in the region.

 

[AbdulQadir7]

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has publicly confirmed that Turkey blocked Israeli President Isaac Herzog from using its airspace to attend the COP29 climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan. Erdogan stated, "We did not allow the Israeli president to use our airspace to attend the COP summit," emphasizing Turkey's stance on certain matters and suggesting alternative routes for Herzog's travel.This incident follows a significant deterioration in Turkish-Israeli relations, particularly after the onset of the conflict in Gaza, which has led Turkey to sever various ties with Israel. Herzog's office cited "security reasons" for the cancellation of his trip, although reports indicate that the Turkish airspace ban was a contributing factor. Other Israeli officials managed to reach Baku via commercial flights through Georgia.Erdogan's remarks highlight Turkey's increasingly assertive foreign policy stance, particularly regarding its support for Palestine and its opposition to Israeli actions in Gaza. The situation underscores the ongoing tensions between Turkey and Israel, which have been exacerbated by recent geopolitical developments.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1859152201446224080

 

[HaiderAfan]

On November 21, 2024, an Israeli airstrike targeted the Khaled bin Al-Waleed School in the Nuseirat Refugee Camp in central Gaza Strip, resulting in the deaths of seven Palestinian civilians, including two children. Reports indicate that during the attack, the first bomb dropped by Israeli forces did not detonate, prompting them to release a second bomb that struck directly where civilians had gathered.

Victims of the Attack​

The casualties from this tragic incident include:

1. Zeina Omar Ziyad Aql, 1.5 years old
2. Moath Youssef Khalil Al-Faqih, 8 years old
3. Wi’am Ziyad Zaki Aql, 20 years old
4. Nasreen Ali Saber Qadouh “Aql,” 22 years old
5. Anwar Mohammad Hamza Al-Ashqar, 30 years old
6. Kifah Khalaf Ibrahim Al-Ashqar, 48 years old
7. Ziyad Zaki Abdelhadi Aql, 55 years old

https://twitter.com/x/status/1859325938703511572

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

If today by some miracle either gets arrested, US will send few armed marines from its embassy to walk into the Hague and free him. Holland will do nothing. The world order is dominated by powerful forces of tyranny, fascism, racism, and anti-human oppression. Individuals of all backgrounds worldwide must unite to chip away at it and hopefully change it.

 

[HaiderAfan]

The claim that the UK military has issued a directive to media editors not to publish information about UK special forces in Gaza, coupled with the assertion that this is linked to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahufacing potential legal repercussions from the International Criminal Court (ICC), raises several important points for consideration.

Key Points:​

• UK Military Directive: The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has protocols in place regarding communication with the media, particularly concerning sensitive military operations. While the specifics of any directive regarding special forces in Gaza are not publicly confirmed, the MoD typically emphasizes operational security and may restrict information dissemination to protect national interests.
• Media Relations: The relationship between the military and the media is often characterized by a "need-to-know" basis. This means that while the military may seek to control narratives around sensitive operations, media outlets operate under a different principle, advocating for public transparency. The existence of a D-Notice system in the UK allows for advisory requests to media not to publish certain information for national security reasons, but compliance is voluntary.
• Netanyahu and the ICC: Reports indicate that Netanyahu faces scrutiny from the ICC over alleged war crimes related to actions taken during conflicts involving Gaza. If true, this could have significant implications for his political standing and Israel's international relations.
• Public Reaction and Implications: If it is confirmed that UK special forces are involved in operations related to Gaza, this could provoke public debate regarding military engagement and accountability. Such developments might also influence perceptions of UK foreign policy and its alignment with Israeli actions.
• Geopolitical Context: The situation in Gaza is highly complex, involving multiple actors and ongoing humanitarian concerns. Any involvement of UK forces could exacerbate tensions both domestically and internationally, particularly among nations critical of Israel's military operations.

Conclusion​

While the assertion about the UK military's directive remains unverified, it highlights the ongoing tension between national security interests and media freedom. The potential legal challenges facing Netanyahu add another layer of complexity to an already volatile situation. As developments unfold, they will likely prompt further scrutiny from both media and international observers regarding military operations and accountability in conflict zones.

 

[Novus ordu seclorum]

White Zionist Jew attacks a Palestinian Semitic couple, yet acts like the victim.

She is Polish Jew, and demands native Palestinian Semites to get out of "her land" and America too. Similar to Hindutva which ideologically places South Asian Muslims out of South Asia. It is basically genocidal intent.

 

[HamzaWaseem]

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchezhas emphasized the importance of upholding international law in both the conflict in Ukraine and the ongoing situation in Gaza. He stated, "If we defend international law in Ukraine, then we must defend international law in Gaza," highlighting a call for consistency in the application of international legal standards across different geopolitical conflicts.

Key Points:​

• Context of the Statement: Sanchez's remarks come amid heightened tensions and violence in Gaza, particularly following Israel's military operations in response to attacks from Hamas. The situation has raised significant concerns regarding civilian casualties and adherence to international humanitarian law.
• International Law Implications: The Prime Minister's statement underscores the necessity for a unified approach to international law, advocating that principles of justice and accountability should apply universally, regardless of the conflict's location. This reflects a broader sentiment among world leaders who are calling for the protection of civilians and adherence to legal norms during warfare.
• Comparative Analysis: The comparison between the situations in Ukraine and Gaza serves to highlight perceived inconsistencies in how international law is applied. While there has been widespread condemnation of Russia's actions in Ukraine, similar scrutiny is increasingly being directed at Israel regarding its military tactics in Gaza.
• Broader Reactions: Sanchez's comments resonate with ongoing debates about the role of international law in contemporary conflicts, particularly as both Russia and Israel have faced accusations of violating humanitarian principles. Advocates for human rights are urging greater accountability for actions taken by all parties involved.

This statement from Prime Minister Sanchez reflects a growing recognition of the need for international legal frameworks to be upheld consistently, reinforcing the idea that the protection of human rights should not be selective based on geopolitical interests.