Archive | 2024/07/27

Podczas ataku na Chan Junis izraelska armia znalazła ciała pięciu zakładników

Chan Junis (Fot. REUTERS/Hatem Khaled)


Podczas ataku na Chan Junis izraelska armia znalazła ciała pięciu zakładników

Marta Urzędowska


Do sytuacji w Strefie Gazy odniosła się kandydatka na prezydentkę USA Kamala Harris.

W czwartek (25.07) izraelska armia prowadząca od kilku dni ofensywę w mieście Chan Junis na południu Strefy Gazy poinformowała, że znalazła ciała pięciu zakładników. Ofiary to Maya Goren, Ravid Aryeh Katz, Oren Goldin, Tomer Ahimas i Kiril Brodski. Według BBC wszyscy mężczyźni byli żołnierzami, z kolei „New York Times” podaje, że dwaj z nich to cywile. Ciała znaleziono w tunelu Hamasu położonym w miejscowości Al-Karara pod Chan Junis, na terenie uznanym za strefę humanitarną dla palestyńskich cywilów, co – jak podkreślają Izraelczycy – dowodzi, że Hamas cynicznie wykorzystuje tereny cywilne i traktuje Palestyńczyków jak żywe tarcze.

Kiedy 24 lipca Benjamin Netanjahu przemawiał w Kongresie, zapewniał, że prowadzone są działania na rzecz uwolnienia zakładników, jednak nie obiecał też dealu z Hamasem. Dlatego przemówienie ostro skrytykowali członkowie rodzin porwanych, czekający na konkretne zapewnienia. Netanjahu, w swoim przemówieniu stwierdził jedynie, że los negocjowanego ciągle rozejmu zależy wyłącznie od Hamasu i nie odniósł się do projektu popieranego przez USA i ONZ, zgodnie z którym Izrael zgodziłby się na stałe zawieszenie broni i wycofanie z Gazy w zamian za uwolnienie wszystkich zakładników.

Na razie nic nie wskazuje na rychły rozejm. Izraelska armia od poniedziałku prowadzi w rejonie Chan Junis operację, której celem są „terroryści i terrorystyczna infrastruktura”. Jednak ONZ alarmuje, że inwazja uderza też w cywilów – od poniedziałku zginęło ponad sto osób, a co najmniej 150 tys. uciekło z miasta. Walki trwają głównie w mniejszych miejscowościach pod miastem – w Bani Suajla, Az-Zanna i Al-Karara.

Uwolnienie zakładników to jeden z najważniejszych punktów negocjacji rozejmowych. Izraelczycy wyliczają, że w rękach terrorystów pozostaje 111 porwanych, spośród których ok. czterdziestu osób zapewne nie żyje.

Airwars: Służby podlegające Hamasowi precyzyjnie zliczały ofiary na początku wojny

Airwars, brytyjska organizacja zbierająca informacje o cywilach zabijanych w strefach konfliktów, w ostatnich dniach potwierdziła, że Hamas – przynajmniej w pierwszych tygodniach wojny – skrupulatnie zliczał liczbę palestyńskich ofiar.

Ta często bywa podawana w wątpliwość. Izraelczycy argumentują, że skoro miejscowe służby medyczne i ministerstwo zdrowia podlegają hamasowcom, nie można wierzyć podawanym przez nie statystykom. Także Joe Biden na początku wojny podkreślał, że „nie wierzy w liczby wymieniane przez Palestyńczyków”.

Jednak eksperci z Airwars uważnie przeanalizowali dane z pierwszych siedemnastu dni wojny, kiedy zginęło – według ministerstwa zdrowia Hamasu – ok. 7 tys. osób. Choć organizacja była w stanie w niezależny sposób zidentyfikować niecałą połowę z nich – trzy tysiące ofiar zabitych w 350 nalotach i eksplozjach, podkreśla, że ok. 75 proc. potwierdzonych nazwisk odpowiada tym z listy ministerstwa, co oznacza, że miejscowe służby zliczały ofiary w sposób rzetelny.

Jak przypomina „New York Times”, Airwars to nie wyjątek. Wielu zagranicznych urzędników i ekspertów, dobrze znających sposób, w jaki ministerstwo zdrowia w Strefie Gazy weryfikuje informacje o zgonach, polegając na danych z kostnic i szpitali, uważa je za wiarygodne.

Jednocześnie analitycy z Airwars podkreślają, że w późniejszych etapach wojny podawane przez miejscowe służby statystyki stały się wyraźnie mniej precyzyjne, bo liczenie stało się trudniejsze – miejscowa infrastruktura i cały system opieki zdrowotnej został zniszczony. Organizacja potwierdza też, że na listach zabitych w ciągu pierwszych tygodni wojny, poza cywilami znalazła się też pewna liczba terrorystów, choć niemożliwe jest ustalenie, jaki odsetek ofiar stanowili.

Izraelczycy szacują, że od początku wojny zabili ok. 14 tys.  palestyńskich terrorystów.

Biden nie zabrał głosu po spotkaniu z Netanjahu. Harris: Nie odwracajmy się od tragedii w Gazie

To, co dzieje się w Gazie od dziewięciu miesięcy, jest straszne. Te zdjęcia zabitych dzieci i zdesperowanych, głodnych ludzi uciekających w poszukiwaniu bezpieczeństwa, czasem po raz drugi, trzeci, czy czwarty

– wyliczała w czwartek (25.07) Kamala Harris, niemal pewna kandydatka Demokratów w wyborach prezydenckich w USA.

Harris mówiła o wojnie w Strefie Gazy, rozpoczętej 7 października ub. roku atakiem Hamasu na Izrael, w którym palestyńscy terroryści zabili 1,2 tys. osób, a 250 porwali do Gazy. W odwecie izraelska armia prowadzi na miejscu naloty i inwazję lądową, w której zginęło – według miejscowych źródeł, czyli Hamasu – ponad 39 tys. Palestyńczyków.

Choć sojusznicy przyznają Izraelczykom prawo do walki z terroryzmem i samoobrony, duża liczba ofiar śmiertelnych wśród cywilów i dramatyczna sytuacja humanitarna w enklawie, gdzie z powodu izraelsko-egipskiej blokady szerzą się głód i groźne choroby, budzą na świecie rosnącą krytykę. Harris, uznawana za jedną z bardziej propalestyńskich osób w administracji Joe Bidena, nie szczędzi izraelskim władzom mocnych słów.

– Izrael ma prawo się bronić, ale ma znaczenie, jak to robi – przyznaje Amerykanka, jednocześnie ostro krytykując Hamas jako „brutalną organizację terrorystyczną”, która dopuszczała się w Izraelu „koszmarnych aktów przemocy seksualnej”.

Nie możemy odwracać się od tragedii w Gazie. Nie możemy sobie pozwolić na zobojętnienie wobec tego cierpienia, dlatego nie będę milczała

– zapewniała po czwartkowym spotkaniu z izraelskim premierem Benjaminem Netanjahu, który w tym tygodniu odwiedził Waszyngton, gdzie spotkał się też z Joe Bidenem i przemówił w Kongresie.

Harris wezwała do wypracowania przez Izrael i Hamas rozejmu w Gazie i zakończenia wojny. – Powiedziałam premierowi Netanjahu: Najwyższy czas zawrzeć ten deal – skwitowała. Wezwała też do  utworzenia palestyńskiego państwa, zapewniając jednocześnie o swoim „niezachwianym poparciu dla istnienia państwa Izrael”.

Biden, który w przeciwieństwie do Harris nie zabrał głosu po spotkaniu z Izraelczykiem, przyjął go zapewne życzliwiej, bo Netanjahu nie szczędził mu ciepłych słów.

Jako dumny żydowski syjonista, dziękuję panu, dumnemu irlandzko-amerykańskiemu syjoniście, za pięćdziesiąt lat publicznej służby i pięćdziesiąt lat wspierania państwa Izrael

– perorował.

Według oświadczenia Białego Domu, obaj przywódcy rozmawiali o ewentualnym rozejmie w Gazie, a Biden „wyraził potrzebę sfinalizowania tego dealu jak najszybciej, sprowadzenia do domu zakładników i zapewnienia trwałego zakończenia wojny”. W piątek Netanjahu spotka się też z kandydatem Republikanów, Donaldem Trumpem, który również ma wezwać do zakończenia wojny.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Kamala Harris wants it both ways on Israel

Kamala Harris wants it both ways on Israel

JONATHAN S. TOBIN


The vice president says the war in Gaza is not a binary issue. Yet seeking to please both liberal Jewish donors and those who want Hamas to win isn’t honest or moral.

.

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris speaks to reporters after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Vice President’s ceremonial office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, D.C., on July 25, 2024. Photo by Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images.

Since she became the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party for the presidency in the last week, backers of Vice President Kamala Harris have been doing their best to redefine her image. That has involved a considerable amount of positive spin about her past and personality, all intended to create a wave of support for the effort to defeat former President Donald Trump.

It’s also involved a healthy dose of what can only be considered an almost Stalinist rewriting of history, such as their claim that President Joe Biden hadn’t put her in charge of the disaster on America’s southern border, which has been dutifully repeated by their cheerleaders in the mainstream corporate media. The same treatment has been given to coverage of her support in 2020 for a fund that bailed out Black Lives Matter rioters and other criminals, including those guilty of violent offenses.

However, when it comes to defining her views on Israel and the war being waged against it by Iran and its terrorist proxies, such shameful deceptions aren’t considered necessary. Instead, the vice president believes the way to navigate the campaign is a careful effort to signal both friends of the Jewish state and those who oppose it that she sympathizes with their positions.

Splitting hairs on the Middle East

That’s the only way to characterize her comments following her July 25 meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during which she posed as not only a supporter of Israel but also someone who sides with its most harsh and dishonest critics. In doing so, she provided ammunition for her supporters to fend off the arguments of those on the right who claim that she is nothing less than an open foe of the Jewish state. At the same time, she gave Democrats seeking to persuade hard-core leftists who do hate Israel—and who had threatened not to vote for Biden—that they have reason to hope that she may be more hostile to Jerusalem than Biden was.

Harris’s comments demonstrated that while she has been a flawed messenger for the administration who often inspired more ridicule than praise, she can also be a savvy politician who knows how to split hairs when necessary.

Since the Hamas terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, Biden has struggled mightily to articulate a coherent position on the war on the terror group in Gaza. At times sounding like the lifelong Zionist he claims to be while at other moments repeating Hamas propaganda, Biden sewed confusion when he should have been sending clear messages to Iran and its terrorist proxies. But while Harris’s position was similarly equivocal, it was delivered with the sort of assurance and steely discipline, as well as a degree of calculated hostility towards Netanyahu, Biden was incapable of pulling off.

This should give no comfort to those who worry about how a Harris administration will treat the Jewish state. Jewish Democrats will harp on her statements of support for Israel, its right to exist and her horror for the crimes of Oct. 7—all of which are, if viewed in isolation, exemplary. But her declaration that the ensuing war post-massacre, carried out by Hamas and Palestinian operatives, “is not a binary issue” should send chills down their spines. By championing the notion that the two sides are morally equivalent, she made it clear that Israelis should not be counting on the United States to have its back should she prevail in November.

That Harris wished to accentuate her hostility to Netanyahu and the democratically elected government he leads became apparent the day before the meeting when, along with half of the Democrats in the House and Senate, she boycotted his address to Congress. She was determined to avoid any pictures or videos of her applauding or treating the prime minister with the courtesy and honor she has given other foreign leaders, like Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Any thought that this gesture was followed by a friendly chat was dispelled by her opening remarks, characterizing the meeting as “frank and constructive.” In the language of diplomacy, that can only describe a conversation conducted with hostility and distrust.

Speaking to two audiences

That was followed by a ritual declaration of “unwavering support” for Israel and her claim that she raised money as a child for the Jewish National Fund. It’s possible that this undocumented anecdote is true, but the idea that the daughter of a Marxist economics professor went door to door asking for donations for planting trees in Israel in far-left Berkeley, Calif., sounds like one of the tall tales Biden likes to spin about his life.

This was followed by her not only denouncing Hamas’s crimes but also saying aloud the names of the Americans still being held hostage by the terrorists. That was not only entirely praiseworthy—and a signal to Netanyahu’s Israeli critics who favor prioritizing the ransoming of the hostages over finishing off the terrorists—but a smart way to signal support for Israel that Biden failed to articulate.

It was immediately offset by qualifying her support for Israel’s right to defense with the caveat that “how it does so matters,” followed by a repetition of Hamas’s claims about the plight of the Gazans who have been harmed by the war.

Her talk of “food insecurity” showed that the claims of a famine in the Gaza Strip are now so thoroughly debunked that not even Harris will repeat it, while also being absurd since how can any people who launched a terrorist war—as the Palestinians did on Oct. 7—expect that the supply of food to their kitchens will not be affected. Nor did she mention that the only reason why the massive amounts of aid that have poured into Gaza since the war started with Israeli help have not lessened Palestinian suffering is that Hamas seizes most of it. Also missing was any mention of Iran, which has played a key role in fomenting the war. Unfortunately, appeasing the Islamist regime remains an article of faith among liberal Democrats like Harris.

In this section of her statement, Harris was all sympathy and concern for Palestinians and their suffering, yet she didn’t state the most important point to be made about what is a genuine crisis, even though it has been exaggerated: All of it is the fault of Hamas. To speak of “images of dead children” without saying that the only reason they died is that their leaders intended to start a war in which as many Palestinians as possible would perish to blacken Israel’s image is an act of moral obtuseness.

Granting Hamas victory

She then asserted that a deal to “end the war” was on the table, which would involve a complete ceasefire and then a total withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. Israel would get its hostages back, but what this amounts to is a demand for a return to the status quo that existed on Oct. 6. And that represents nothing less than a formula for victory for Hamas, which would rightly claim that the West had forced Israel to accept defeat. Though the terrorists’ organized military formations have been largely destroyed, its remnants would quickly resume control of the Strip in spite of any possible plans for foreign forces to assume security control.

Bolstered by the triumph of their survival, the terror group would loom as an even greater threat to the alleged “moderates” of Fatah, who control the Palestinian Authority in Judea and Samaria, than before. And without Israel administering the border between Gaza and Egypt, Hamas would quickly go about reconstructing its terrorist state with, no doubt, the assistance of Western Europe and a Harris administration.

Such a deal might gain the freedom of the Israeli hostages, though anyone who is counting on Hamas keeping its word after it gets most of what it wants is dreaming. What it would be is a guarantee that Israel could look forward to future atrocities by a Hamas movement that will have been emboldened by the sympathy of Western liberals rather than chastened by the cost of the Israeli counter-offensives. Hostage families thinking that this is a fair exchange is perhaps to be understood; still, it is incompatible with any notion that the United States supports Israel’s security or wishes to prevent more bloodshed in the future.

Harris then followed that by saying that the United States was still committed to a path towards a two-state solution sometime in the indefinite future.

Illogical and insincere

A two-state solution is a rational idea in theory. But Harris and the Democrats who cling to this notion are not listening to the Palestinians. Hamas, which now commands the support of most Palestinians, is only interested in Israel’s extinction and the genocide of Jews. The Palestinian Authority is similarly unprepared to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, no matter where its borders are drawn. And both have demonstrated their commitment to this vile goal by their attitude towards the current war and the atrocities of Oct. 7.

At some point, leaders like Harris—who qualify their support for Israel with arguments that Jerusalem must also be forced to make suicidal concessions to people who have shown time and again that they are not interested in peace—need to be held accountable for a position that is, at best, illogical, and, at worst, utterly insincere.

It’s all well and good to repeat lines about a two-state solution being necessary for the survival of a secure, Jewish and democratic state. This is a theory that could have made sense before Israel signed the Oslo Accords in 1993—agreeing to withdraw from almost all of the territories and part of Jerusalem in 1999, 2000 and 2008 in order to create a Palestinian state—only to be turned down each time. It did remove every Jewish settlement, settler and soldier from Gaza in the summer of 2005. But the events of the last 31 years have completely discredited the land-for-peace theory among Israelis, the overwhelming majority of whom now reject the idea as not so much ill-advised as insane. That understanding of the intransigence of the Palestinians was only reinforced by the events of Oct. 7. Yet to Harris, none of this matters.

The worst element of Harris’s statement came at its end when she told “ceasefire advocates”—a euphemism for the pro-Hamas mobs that gathered this week in Washington to vent their spleen at Israel and to tear down and burn American flags, as well as to the antisemitic mobs that have turned college campuses into no-go zones for Jews—that “I see you and hear you.”

Like her previous statements along these lines, this is a demonstration of sympathy for those who, like Hamas, want Israel destroyed. It needs to be repeated that this is exactly what Democrats have falsely accused Trump of doing when they promoted the myth that he had called neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 “very fine people.” For Harris, those who demonstrate for the destruction of Israel are not hatemongers to be despised but “very fine people” who need to be assured that they are seen and heard.

Moral equivalence

In saying that the war in Gaza “is not a binary issue” but a complex one, the vice president was not only directly refuting Netanyahu when he told Congress that the conflict represents a clash between “barbarism and civilization.” She was denying the essential reason why the conflict continues despite decades of peace-processing and Israeli concessions. To condemn “terrorism and violence” without understanding that these are the only tactics that Palestinians consider politically legitimate is to display both ignorance and disingenuousness.

The same is true for her closing remarks declaring her opposition to both antisemitism and Islamophobia. The surge in Jew-hatred across America among left-wingers is real. Talk of Islamophobia is merely a way to try to delegitimize those who call out Muslims for their loathing of Jews and Israel.

The events of Oct. 7—and the reality of Palestinian intransigence and commitment to anti-Jewish violence—should compel decent people to recognize that the current war is a conflict between good and evil. Yet if the goal is only to combine statements to placate liberal Jewish Democratic donors with those that might play well among antisemitic radical leftists and Muslims, then such moral clarity is neither possible nor desirable.

Americans have a right to expect more than platitudes that treat Israel and its foes as morally equivalent. The talk of rejecting binary reasoning about this war is no more defensible than it would be about the war against the Nazis, whose eliminationist goals, Hamas and the Palestinians share.

A President Kamala Harris can be expected to continue a policy of moral equivalence in which Israel might not be completely abandoned but it would be pressured, as it was under President Barack Obama, to endanger its people in order to appease people who want it dead. Some may consider that good enough. But in a Middle East that—thanks to the colossal mistakes made by Obama and Biden—has become even more dangerous for Israel, it is a formula for a future in which we can expect more Jewish and Arab blood to be shed because Palestinian terrorists believe that Washington will continue to bail them out.


Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS (Jewish News Syndicate). Follow him @jonathans_tobin.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Shira Haas’ Superhero Sabra Will Remain Israeli in Marvel’s ‘Captain America: Brave New World,’ Insiders Confirm

Shira Haas’ Superhero Sabra Will Remain Israeli in Marvel’s ‘Captain America: Brave New World,’ Insiders Confirm

Shiryn Ghermezian


Shira Haas. Photo: Eyal Nevo

Marvel Studios will not erase the Israeli identity of the superhero Sabra, who will be played by Israeli actress Shira Haas in the upcoming Marvel film “Captain America: Brave New World,” two insiders with knowledge of the movie confirmed to TheWrap on Wednesday.

After Marvel Studios released a synopsis for the 2025 superhero movie last week that revealed Sabra will not be depicted as a Mossad agent, like she is in the comics, some fans expressed disappointment in changes done to the superhero’s backstory and ties to Israel. Marvel described the character in the upcoming film as a “high-ranking US government official” and former “Black Widow,” like the assassin characters played by Scarlett Johansson and Florence Pugh in other Marvel projects.

However, Sabra’s real name will remain Ruth Bat-Seraph in the film, as it is in the comics. She will also speak with an Israeli accent while being played by Haas in the upcoming “Captain America” film, insiders told TheWrap, clarifying that audiences will know the character is Israeli, despite other changes to the superhero. One insider explained that Sabra’s backstory for “Captain America: Brave New World” was always going to be changed from how she is portrayed in the comics, and that the decision to make her a former Black Widow instead of a Mossad agent was unrelated to recent world events or the Oct. 7 Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel.

Marvel has faced criticism regarding the inclusion of the Sabra character in “Captain America: Brave New World” since it was first announced in 2022. At the time, the studio made it clear that the character might be changed from how she is depicted in the comics. “While our characters and stories are inspired by the comics, they are always freshly imagined for the screen and today’s audience, and the filmmakers are taking a new approach with the character Sabra who was first introduced in the comics over 40 years ago,” Marvel Studios said in a statement.

The superhero Sabra first appeared in the Marvel comic book “The Incredible Hulk” in 1980. In the comics, she is an Israeli mutant and agent for the Mossad. She also worked as an Israeli police officer as a cover. Her superpowers include superhuman strength, speed, stamina, a regenerative healing power, and the ability to charge others by transferring her life force to them. Her superhero costume was blue and white — the same colors as Israel’s flag — and her outfit featured a Star of David. “Sabra” is a term in Hebrew used to describe someone who is native to Israel.

The first teaser trailer for “Captain America: Brave New World” was released last week.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com