- Dec 1, 2011
- 24,196
- 20,001
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Israel-Hamas Thread II
- Thread starter wing2000
- Start date
Benaiah468
Well-Known Member
- May 19, 2024
- 1,523
- 191
- 58
- Country
- Germany
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
We are, but given the nonsense of your assumption, we should close this case. Israel and Turkey do not share a physical border, which makes territorial annexation geographically impossible. If you decide to leave the realm of conspiracy theories behind to understand and classify the actual geopolitical facts, feel free to ask for help.
Upvote
0
Benaiah468
Well-Known Member
- May 19, 2024
- 1,523
- 191
- 58
- Country
- Germany
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
The Israeli Security Cabinet has approved the first practical step toward establishing a new order in the Gaza Strip. The “Board of Peace,” led by U.S. President Donald Trump, has been authorized to launch a pilot project in Rafah aimed at providing basic services, humanitarian aid, and temporary housing in areas outside Hamas’s control.
The decision goes well beyond a mere political declaration of intent. Israel is also granting the multinational International Stabilization Force (ISF) and the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) access to at least part of the Gaza Strip. This could lead to the creation, for the first time since the war, of an area that is neither administered by Hamas nor supplied solely by Israeli military structures.
The pilot program is set to begin in Rafah in the coming weeks. The plan calls for temporary housing for residents of the Gaza Strip and the restoration of basic services. According to the *Jerusalem Post*, anyone wishing to live there will be subject to strict vetting. Individuals with ties to Hamas are to be excluded. If the model proves successful, it will be expanded to other areas at a later date.
This marks the start of an effort to no longer make reconstruction contingent on a prior comprehensive solution for all of Gaza. Instead of waiting years for the complete disarmament of Hamas, the plan is to first establish an alternative to its rule in a limited and controllable area.
This could be a necessary way out of the current deadlock. However, it could also turn into a serious security blunder if the controls fail and Hamas infiltrates the new facilities through front organizations.
According to the Jerusalem Post, the international force is expected to include soldiers from Morocco, Albania, and Kazakhstan, among others. Several countries had already declared their willingness, in principle, to provide troops for the ISF. The force is intended not only to support relief efforts but also to secure the new order and prevent armed groups from regaining control.
What will therefore be decisive is not the number of troops, but their mandate. An international force that merely manns checkpoints and reports violations, while Hamas fighters in the surrounding area retain their weapons, would be worthless. It would not relieve Israel of its burden but would instead erect a new international facade over a regime of terror that continues to exist.
The ISF must have the authority and political backing to secure weapons depots, repel armed intruders, and protect the new administration from intimidation. Likewise, Israel must retain its military freedom of action in the event that the international force fails to eliminate an acute threat.
The resolution does not yet mean that Hamas has been disarmed. On the contrary: the terrorist organization continues to refuse to surrender all of its weapons. This is precisely where the greatest contradiction in the new plan lies.
The “Board of Peace” had proposed a phased approach. First, the most dangerous weapons, including rockets, heavy explosives, and military-grade rifles, were to be surrendered. Tunnels would have to be rendered inoperable. Disarmament was to be carried out gradually in tandem with a withdrawal of Israeli forces. Hamas has not yet accepted this approach.
Rafah is now intended to circumvent this problem geographically. The pilot zone is to be established in areas where Hamas no longer exercises control. Residents will receive aid and shelter if they pass security checks. The hope behind this is understandable: Palestinians are to experience that a life with supplies, reconstruction, and civilian administration is possible without Hamas.
If this succeeds, the terrorist organization will lose one of its most important means of power. Hamas did not rule solely through the use of weapons. It controlled employment, aid supplies, housing, permits, and social services. Anyone in need of food, money, or protection was often dependent on its structures. A functioning alternative could break this dependency.
If the project fails, however, Hamas will be given a new opportunity. It could infiltrate members as inconspicuous civilians, threaten construction companies, demand protection money, or divert materials. Previous attempts to prepare for construction work in Israeli-controlled areas are said to have been obstructed by armed Hamas members.
The security screening must therefore not be reduced to a superficial questioning. Israel must be able to contribute its intelligence on Hamas fighters, officials, financiers, and supporters. Members of the new administration must also be vetted. A person is not automatically considered safe simply because they do not wear a uniform and call themselves a technocrat.
Egypt bears a special responsibility. Israeli and Egyptian officers held strategic talks in early July regarding the next phase in Gaza. Cairo is seen as taking a much tougher stance toward Hamas than Qatar or Turkey and is reportedly willing to take back weapons that have been surrendered. For Egypt, Hamas also poses a domestic and security threat due to its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The cabinet decision opens up a real possibility. It shifts part of the civil responsibility to international and Palestinian structures without explicitly allowing Hamas to return to the administration. At the same time, it shows that Israel is willing to support an alternative if it meets its security requirements.
Now the harder part begins. On paper, a technocratically administered Rafah protected by an international force is easy to describe. In Gaza, however, this model must hold its own against a terrorist organization that views any independent authority as a threat.
Rafah will therefore not merely serve as a testing ground for reconstruction.
It will serve as a test of whether the international community is truly willing to protect Gaza from Hamas, rather than simply imposing further obligations on Israel.
The decision goes well beyond a mere political declaration of intent. Israel is also granting the multinational International Stabilization Force (ISF) and the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) access to at least part of the Gaza Strip. This could lead to the creation, for the first time since the war, of an area that is neither administered by Hamas nor supplied solely by Israeli military structures.
The pilot program is set to begin in Rafah in the coming weeks. The plan calls for temporary housing for residents of the Gaza Strip and the restoration of basic services. According to the *Jerusalem Post*, anyone wishing to live there will be subject to strict vetting. Individuals with ties to Hamas are to be excluded. If the model proves successful, it will be expanded to other areas at a later date.
This marks the start of an effort to no longer make reconstruction contingent on a prior comprehensive solution for all of Gaza. Instead of waiting years for the complete disarmament of Hamas, the plan is to first establish an alternative to its rule in a limited and controllable area.
This could be a necessary way out of the current deadlock. However, it could also turn into a serious security blunder if the controls fail and Hamas infiltrates the new facilities through front organizations.
According to the Jerusalem Post, the international force is expected to include soldiers from Morocco, Albania, and Kazakhstan, among others. Several countries had already declared their willingness, in principle, to provide troops for the ISF. The force is intended not only to support relief efforts but also to secure the new order and prevent armed groups from regaining control.
What will therefore be decisive is not the number of troops, but their mandate. An international force that merely manns checkpoints and reports violations, while Hamas fighters in the surrounding area retain their weapons, would be worthless. It would not relieve Israel of its burden but would instead erect a new international facade over a regime of terror that continues to exist.
The ISF must have the authority and political backing to secure weapons depots, repel armed intruders, and protect the new administration from intimidation. Likewise, Israel must retain its military freedom of action in the event that the international force fails to eliminate an acute threat.
The resolution does not yet mean that Hamas has been disarmed. On the contrary: the terrorist organization continues to refuse to surrender all of its weapons. This is precisely where the greatest contradiction in the new plan lies.
The “Board of Peace” had proposed a phased approach. First, the most dangerous weapons, including rockets, heavy explosives, and military-grade rifles, were to be surrendered. Tunnels would have to be rendered inoperable. Disarmament was to be carried out gradually in tandem with a withdrawal of Israeli forces. Hamas has not yet accepted this approach.
Rafah is now intended to circumvent this problem geographically. The pilot zone is to be established in areas where Hamas no longer exercises control. Residents will receive aid and shelter if they pass security checks. The hope behind this is understandable: Palestinians are to experience that a life with supplies, reconstruction, and civilian administration is possible without Hamas.
If this succeeds, the terrorist organization will lose one of its most important means of power. Hamas did not rule solely through the use of weapons. It controlled employment, aid supplies, housing, permits, and social services. Anyone in need of food, money, or protection was often dependent on its structures. A functioning alternative could break this dependency.
If the project fails, however, Hamas will be given a new opportunity. It could infiltrate members as inconspicuous civilians, threaten construction companies, demand protection money, or divert materials. Previous attempts to prepare for construction work in Israeli-controlled areas are said to have been obstructed by armed Hamas members.
The security screening must therefore not be reduced to a superficial questioning. Israel must be able to contribute its intelligence on Hamas fighters, officials, financiers, and supporters. Members of the new administration must also be vetted. A person is not automatically considered safe simply because they do not wear a uniform and call themselves a technocrat.
Egypt bears a special responsibility. Israeli and Egyptian officers held strategic talks in early July regarding the next phase in Gaza. Cairo is seen as taking a much tougher stance toward Hamas than Qatar or Turkey and is reportedly willing to take back weapons that have been surrendered. For Egypt, Hamas also poses a domestic and security threat due to its ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The cabinet decision opens up a real possibility. It shifts part of the civil responsibility to international and Palestinian structures without explicitly allowing Hamas to return to the administration. At the same time, it shows that Israel is willing to support an alternative if it meets its security requirements.
Now the harder part begins. On paper, a technocratically administered Rafah protected by an international force is easy to describe. In Gaza, however, this model must hold its own against a terrorist organization that views any independent authority as a threat.
Rafah will therefore not merely serve as a testing ground for reconstruction.
It will serve as a test of whether the international community is truly willing to protect Gaza from Hamas, rather than simply imposing further obligations on Israel.
Upvote
0
essentialsaltes
Fact-Based Lifeform
- Oct 17, 2011
- 49,271
- 51,578
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
Now here's some Lebensraum.
Thai minister rejects ‘Israeli territory’ claim during Phuket inspection
Thai officials inspecting the Chabad House in Patong, Phuket, were met with an unusual exchange on July 23 when a man allegedly claimed the premises were “Israeli territory“.
Upvote
0
Benaiah468
Well-Known Member
- May 19, 2024
- 1,523
- 191
- 58
- Country
- Germany
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Your assumption is based on a flawed premise. The incident in Thailand is real, but it in no way serves as evidence of Israeli territorial claims. A Chabad House is a religious community center, not a government embassy or military outpost. To claim that a single, unidentified person asking a strange question during a commercial license audit is proof of Israeli territorial expansion is logical fallacy. No official representative of the State of Israel has ever claimed territory in Thailand or Turkey. Please stick to verifiable state actions and international law instead of misinterpreting a local business audit as a global conspiracy. Following this absurd line of reasoning, every Israeli flag flown on a building in the US would be an official territorial claim. So the case remains closed.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Similar threads
