These three paragraphs incapsulate the whole Gaza war and Hamas genocidal dictatorship there. Numerous hostages said they were held at a hospital, as part of the Hamas illegal massacre. “Medical officials” deny this…clearly because there is an omertà among them to never mention Hamas or its criminal use and exploitation of medical facilitators. The genocidal group, which is backed Iran and western allies, systematically used hospitals to move hostages…and no one “saw” anything. The Hamas regime is empowered and supported by international organizations and their omertà Notice none of the medical people say “we saw Hamas moving hostages into the hospital but it’s our duty to provide care”…which would have been a normal excuse. Imagine if a cartel moved hostages to a hospital in Sinaloa…you could imagine that medical professionals might explain it that way. But Hamas has such control that the medical people will never mention their presence due to non-disclosure agreements that clearly have been agreed with these medical folk. They treated hostages but have an omertà with the authoritarian regime that the west empowered and cemented in control.

Emma is heroic here. It is a shame on the audience they are not applauding here but rather trying to hide. There was a time when people would stand up and applaud and demand the release of Tsurkov who is illegally kidnapped in Iraq. What a shame. A shame on the audience. It speaks volumes about the amorality of today. The lack of heroism and ethics and decency and humanity. This is shame. Instead of standing up and supporting the kidnapped Tsurkov. Why is it so hard to support a researcher illegally held by this vile regime. Stand up and applaud. Stand up and be counted.

This may seem an unlikelt conclusion, but my sense is that the Hezbollah "Radwan" force and Hamas "battalions" are sort of symptoms of the same problem in analyzing the conflicts. In both cases Israel has focused a lot of attention on these entities, as if defeating them is a measurement of achievement.
Here is why this is problematic. Hamas didn't used to have "battalions." It used to be a much smaller terror group. It grew into a terror army with "battalions" primarily because it was allowed to. Israel's numerous wars in Gaza each ended with Israel claiming achievements against the Hamas "metro" or something else. And in each case Hamas rapidly recovered and expanded.

There should be a kind of "alternate history" article(s) on how Iran and its proxies were empowered to grow exponentially in the region and it should include Israel's policies, which were ostensibly against Iran and the proxies...but explain how this ended up with Iran in an unprecedented and strong position on Israel's borders. What I mean is the aphorism, when everyone is thinking the same thing, someone isn't thinking. It requires a critical reading of the history to explain the policies that enabled Hamas to become exponentially more powerful than it was 20 years ago.

I just realized that one outcome of Iran launching such a massive unprecedented attack using drones and missiles is that it wanted to create a new bar for such attacks in the future so it can attack Israel with fewer projectiles directly and then have it portrayed as normal and acceptable You see all the people who already went to bat for this narrative claiming this was just a symbolic attack not meant to succeed…so they now define 350 missiles as acceptable. And so if Iran launches 20 missiles they will have redefined that as fine

The worst takes on the Iranian attack of April 13-14 are those who call it “symbolic”. This was a massive, unprecedented attack of historic proportions. Never before in history were so many drones, ballistic, missiles and cruise missiles (350 in total) used at the same time in an attack, and from several different fronts and directions, including attacks from Hezbollah in Lebanon and from the direction of Yemen and over Iraq and Jordan, and almost all of it timed to arrive within around ten minutes of eachother…

Those who think it was “symbolic” or designed not to succeed either know nothing about the weapons involved, the complexity of planning this, know nothing about history, know nothing about the complexity of the air defenses involved and billions of investment it took over four decades to meet this attack, or are simply being purposely disingenuous (more likely). I suspect most of those making the comment aren’t purposely ignorant, they know firing 350 drones and missiles that require different times to arrive and targeting different areas of Israel with precision from four directions is incredibly complex and was not designed to fail…they need to downplay it for some reason. Because by their logic if 350 is symbolic then what would 1,000 missiles be?

Israel historically understood that it had to be willing to go it alone.

One of the issues after October 7 is how to restore deterrence. My sense is that Iran and its proxies all feel emboldened and have tried to change the "rules" and the "equation" in the region to make it acceptable for them all to attack Israel whenever they want. Israel's partners are willing to help defend, but their message is for Israel not to respond too much...which creates a situation of endless war and managing the conflict. That is what led to Oct. 7. Not responding and "managing" conflicts is not a good substitute for strategy. It just kicks the can down the road...and kicking the can leads Iran and its proxies to grow stronger.

Today the narrative among some is that Iran’s unprecedented massive attack with missiles and drones is just “symbolic” and didn’t harm much so therefore it can be shrugged off.

That was the same mentality about the rocket fire from Gaza two decades ago and also the Hezbollah rocket fire and the Houthi attacks. The always change the goal posts so hundreds or thousands of missiles are no big deal. And then when Hamas massacres 1,000 people and takes 250 hostage then they are surprised. If you don’t take one missile being fired as a threat then it becomes two and then ten and 100 and 1,000. The fact is that systematically Iran has been allowed to spread drone and missile terror around the Middle East and also sent drones to Russia to terrorize Ukrainians. Did the same people who say it was just “symbolic” say that when missiles and drones rain down on Ukrainian civilians?

The narratives appearing this morning after the unprecedented Iranian attack on Israel (the largest use of drones at a single time in a long range attack) is that the attack can be kind of dismissed because they were intercepted. This is wrong, and here is why.:

First of all this is one of the catch-22s of having good air defenses, which is that attacks are downplayed and Israel especially is told not to respond because the defenses are successful I think that’s a misreading of the situation. Iran is emboldened and not deterred every time it feels it can attack, whether it is attacking US forces or hijacking ships or attacking Saudi Arabia or having its militias attack Israel, and the U.S. and other countries, such as attacks on Erbil, or killing Americans in Jordan in January

This new Crisis Group report is all about "civilian police" in Gaza...which it then notes "do not appear in uniform" and also notes that police have ties to Hamas.

It's worth reading just to think of how much work has gone in to whitewashing the "police" in Gaza and how they play a key role in Hamas control and also hijacking aid. Let's take a look at the article,
crisisgroup.org/middle-east-no…
First of all Hamas runs Gaza and the police are Hamas no matter how much int'l orgs always want to portray them positively.

How can you call them "civilian police" when on October 7 they didn't do anything to prevent the illegal Hamas attack on Israel or prevent Hamas parading dead bodies in the streets of kidnapped people. Wouldn't the police job normally be to render aid and not have bodies paraded in the streets.

Israel's Defense Minister gave an interesting briefing today and one thing stands out and leads to questions about October 7.

He said: "There is a common misunderstanding. Indeed we were attacked by people operating under the terrorist flag of Hamas, but it was not a terrorist group. We were attacked by an organized commando division. This is the military formation that we are fighting – not just terrorists. When we say that we are going to destroy Hamas as a military organization, it means that we will not allow them to attack us in a military way again. We cannot let this evil phenomenon to exist near us – just a few hundred meters away from our communities.” If Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7 in fact composed of basically military-style units that acted as commandos, a reference to the Nukhba units, and if the assessment is it was the size of a brigade or division of attackers (i.e thousands)...then this raises even bigger questions about why Israel didn't take this threat more seriously before October 7.

Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant gave a briefing today, here are some key points.

He said that Hamas is a terrorist organization, and that its attack on Israel was similar to an "organized commando division. This is the military formation that we are fighting – not just terrorists. When we say that we are going to destroy Hamas as a military organization, it means that we will not allow them to attack us in a military way again.” “Today Hamas is no longer functioning as a military organization across the strip – we have destroyed 4 out of 5 regional brigades. The remaining Brigade is in the south and across the strip we are fighting terror hotspots.”

I have a theory about the IDF withdrawal from Gaza and it’s not what others are saying. Some think it’s because of US pressure. Some think it’s because of a first move for a hostage deal. Some think it’s 3D chess of some brilliant stratagem. Here is my sense of it: When the war began the IDF first had to recover from the shock and chaos, it also had to send a lot of soldiers north to deter Hezbollah. It decided early on not to pursue Hamas into Gaza but to collect itself and wage an air campaign and then a ground operation.

A quick thought about Oct. 7 in comparison to the First and Second Intifadas and why it will be harder for peace now. The First Intifada led to the Oslo Accords, and it was primarily focused on Gaza and the West Bank. It formed the basis for two states. The Second Intifada, which was more deadly and violent, came after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon and was driven by Palestinian leadership that believed increasing the violence would lead to Israeli withdrawal. This worked in a sense, Israel left Gaza. In general the Second Intifada was still a product of the two state concept.

I remember when the war in Gaza began I got a number of requests to write articles comparing the challenges of fighting Hamas in Gaza to fighting ISIS in Mosul, since I had covered both wars. I wrote a bunch of articles. Today I’m dismayed, here’s why In both Gaza and Mosul the armies prepared for a long war. In this respect the Israelis and Iraqis faced similar challenges and understood the complex battlefield ahead

I remember a few years ago when experts were arguing how Israel-Turkey “reconciliation” was so important and scoffing at Israel’s energy EastMed policy in regards to Greece and Cyprus. Several of these experts would always tell me “Cyprus and Greece are unimportant, Turkey is a major power, Israel-Turkey relations are the most important blah blah”…. I always said to them…if Israel becomes dependent on Turkey for natural gas exports then Ankara will use this every time there is a war to cut off the energy ties. Having Israel put so much of its economy to be dependent on Ankara benefits Ankara but not Israel.

Six months ago at this exact time I woke up to the sound of sirens in Jerusalem. I was bewildered but began to film #October7 The sirens and interceptions continued in Jerusalem for a few minutes and then began again at 8:56am that day

The IDF has concluded an investigation into the targeting of three vehicles and killing seven aid workers with WCK (three of whom were security coordinators).

The findings still leave a few questions, I'll detail in the thread.

The conclusion says the brigade fire support commander of the sector will be dismissed, and the brigade chief of staff will also be dismissed. "Additionally, the brigade commander and the 162nd Division commander will be formally reprimanded. The IDF Chief of Staff decided to formally reprimand the commander of the Southern Command for his overall responsibility for the incident." "The IDF takes seriously the grave incident that claimed the lives of seven innocent humanitarian aid workers. We express our deep sorrow for the loss and send our condolences to the families and the WCK organization. We consider the vital humanitarian activity of international aid organizations to be of utmost importance, and we will continue to work to coordinate and assist their activities, while ensuring their safety and safeguarding their lives."

Israel Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant to the Knesset’s Security and Foreign Affairs Committee: “Every day we gain further evidence that we find ourselves in a multi-front war. Our goal is to operate everywhere to prevent our enemies from gaining strength, and exacting a heavy price [from anyone] who operates against the State of Israel.” Today Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant hosted the Knesset’s Security and Foreign Affairs Committee, led by Knesset Member Yuli Edelstein. Minister Gallant provided the committee’s members with an operational briefing.

I'm not sure.
On the one hand, I agree that October 7 was the opening shot in a much larger war and that Hezbollah and Hamas backers in Tehran want to create a "new world order" and reshape the region.
There are other factors though. Let me explain. Chances of a war depends on who benefits from a war with Hezbollah. Hamas launched its massive unprecedented massacre attack targeting civilians because it had backing and there were countries that benefited that told it they would have its back. Hezbollah on the other hand may not have the same list of backers. And Hezbollah is not hosted and backed by two western allies. Hezbollah is basically only backed by Iran (not so much by Russia and China, who back Hamas)... Israel and Gazans didn't benefit from the Hamas attack. Hamas and its patrons and backers did.

Hezbollah stands to lose out in a war with Israel, and so does Israel. And no one benefits from a Hezbollah war (except maybe Iran...but diminishing returns there).

I've been thinking about the Second Battle of Shifa raid that the IDF conducted since March 18....an important raid that has netted hundreds of terrorists. It is being portrayed as one of the greatest successes of the war so far. On the one hand that's true, which doesn't necessarily tell us much because it's kind of a low bar being set here.

I will explain. Two of the terrorists that were announced "eliminated' yesterday are aging terrorists. It doesn't say when they were born, but these guys have a long history of crimes. Let's think of them more like aging members of the mafia, since it's actually a better way to think of Hamas. These guys were released in the Schalit deal.

It's kind of hard to celebrate a success of eliminating guys who were supposed to be eliminated decades ago. What I mean is that Israel had captured all these guys many years ago and released them. So the successes is merely that Israel had to then work hard, again, to find them, again...maybe again and again...