Skip to main content

Israel-Gaza war: What is your legitimate conclusion?

The ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel has been a long-standing issue in the Middle East. The question of who has given Hamas the authority to expand its territory from the river to the sea is a contentious one, with both sides claiming legitimacy for their actions.

Hamas, a militant Islamic organization, has been in control of the Gaza Strip since 2007. Its charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in Palestine. Hamas has been accused of using violence and terrorism to achieve its goals, including numerous rocket attacks on Israeli cities.

Israel, on the other hand, is a democratic state that has existed since 1948. It has faced numerous security threats over the years, including from Hamas and other militant groups. Israel's position is that it has the right to defend itself against these threats and that it will not allow Hamas to expand its authority beyond the Gaza Strip.

The issue of who has given Hamas the authority to expand its territory from the river to the sea is a complex one. Some argue that Hamas's charter and actions demonstrate its desire to expand beyond the Gaza Strip, while others point to Israel's occupation of the West Bank as a justification for Hamas's actions.

Israel's occupation of the West Bank, which began in 1967, has been a major source of tension in the region. Many Palestinians view this as a violation of their rights and see it as evidence of Israel's intent to expand its territory at their expense. Hamas has used this as a rallying cry, arguing that it is fighting against Israeli aggression and occupation.

However, Israel maintains that it is not expanding its territory but rather defending itself against threats from militant groups like Hamas. It argues that it has withdrawn from Gaza and that it is willing to negotiate a peace agreement with Palestinians based on mutual recognition and security guarantees.

In conclusion, the question of who has given Hamas the authority to expand its territory from the river to the sea is one that is deeply contested. Both sides have legitimate grievances and claims, but ultimately it will be up to the parties involved to find a peaceful solution that respects both their rights and interests. Until then, the conflict between Hamas and Israel will continue to be a source of tension and instability in the region.


 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trump: ‘Letters to Trump’

Well what has the title do to write a post on this topic? This is not a book review, but in case you’re interested you can buy it from book stores everywhere, Amazon.com , Hannity.com . The post is only to highlight how Trump is in the moment desperate to win in the 2024 elections. A reason why he has come with a book not about elections, his achievements, business and not even his first fours 2016-2020 as the United States President. But, for those or anyone interested in reading this book it’s available in the links given above so you can buy it there. The title of the book is the title and the topic of this post. Good luck! Get your copy first before it’s all sold out.

The Lebanon-Israel Conflict: Civilian Casualties Mount Amid Escalating Strikes and Regional Tensions

The war in Lebanon has taken a toll of over 500 civilians killed and nearly 16,000 hospitalized from Israel strikes in Southern Lebanon. Israel aims to create a buffer zone bordering between Northern Israel and Southern Lebanon pushing back the Hezbollah from that region. In a similar escalation of fight in 2006 inside Lebanon ended up without a victory for Israel at that time at which time nearly 1200 civilians were killed and a lot more pushed away for places safer in Northern Lebanon. The US has said that it would bring a ceasefire within a week to end the conflict which started in Gaza on October 7th between Israel and Hamas.  

Kamala Harris: Missing the Moment to Define Her Leadership

Transcript: The recent debate featuring Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was an important moment for the Democratic nominee to solidify her position as a leader. Yet, instead of seizing the opportunity to project confidence and vision, Kamala seemed to falter, weighed down by personal fears and memories of long-standing struggles. A key point that stood out was how Kamala Harris seemed to forget the very words she once made her mantra in her career as a prosecutor: "Kamala Harris for the people." These five words, often repeated by her during her time in courtrooms, represented her fight for justice and equality. However, during the debate, this sense of purpose seemed absent. The stage was set for her to remind everyone why she was the candidate for all people, but she failed to deliver a message that would resonate on that larger stage. Rather than focusing on a forward-thinking vision, Harris spent much of her time reflecting on the negatives, particularly issues of racism, ...