Israel orders mass 'evacuation' from Northern Gaza, humanitarian crisis certain to ensue

[Solauren]

It's not about conquering Gaza. I don't think it ever was.

Honestly, this is looking more and more like ethnic cleansing to me.

[Ralin]

I know this isn't much...but I'm pretty sure this has never happened before. Ever.

What, the US withdrawing aid or threatening to? Reagan did it at one point. Bush senior too

[Juubi Karakuchi]

I know this isn't much...but I'm pretty sure this has never happened before. Ever.

What, the US withdrawing aid or threatening to? Reagan did it at one point. Bush senior too

My mistake. But Biden does seem to be doubling down on this.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/art ... h-invasion

US will stop supplying some weapons to Israel if it invades Rafah, Biden warns
US president publicly warns that his administration will not provide the weapons for an offensive on Rafah

Julian Borger in Washington and Peter Beaumont in London
Thu 9 May 2024 00.54 BST

Joe Biden has issued a blunt warning to Israel that his administration will stop supplying bombs and artillery shells if its military pushes ahead with an offensive on the southern Gaza city of Rafah, in what could mark the start of a turning point in relations between the two countries.

The US president delivered the warning in a television interview in which he brushed aside Israeli and Republican complaints and made clear his administration would not provide the weapons for an offensive on Rafah, which the US, the UN and other aid agencies warn would trigger a humanitarian disaster.

“I made it clear that if they go into Rafah – they haven’t gone in Rafah yet – if they go into Rafah, I’m not supplying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with Rafah, to deal with the cities – that deal with that problem,” Biden told CNN.

The president was speaking after it was announced his administration had paused the delivery of 3,500 munitions, more than half them 2,000lb bombs, which can cause devastating damage and severe civilian casualties when dropped on densely populated areas.

“Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers,” Biden said.

Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence on a Rafah offensive to destroy what Israel says is the last stronghold of Hamas in Gaza, despite repeated US warnings about the humanitarian impact on more than 1 million Gazans sheltering in the city, has brought a simmering US-Israel rift to the surface.

Gilad Erdan, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, said he did not believe the US would stop supplying arms to Israel, but called Washington’s decision to hold up some weapons shipments “very disappointing”, even frustrating.

Joe Biden “can’t say he is our partner in the goal to destroy Hamas while on the other hand delay the means meant to destroy Hamas”, Erdan told Israel’s Channel 12 News.

The hold on the munitions delivery also drew a quick response from the Republican leadership.

“Israel faces an existential and multi-front threat … and daylight between the United States and Israel at this dangerous time risks emboldening Israel’s enemies and undermining the trust that other allies and partners have in the United States,” the House speaker, Mike Johnson, and Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, wrote in a letter to the president.

The White House decision drew support from progressive Democrats, including Senator Chris Van Hollen.

“We should use the tools available to us to enforce the president’s objectives and US policy,” Van Hollen said. “A partnership must be a two-way street, not a one-way blank cheque.”

Biden stressed the US would continue to supply ammunition for Israel’s main air defence system, Iron Dome, which performed well in the face of an Iranian missile and drone barrage last month, but he said Washington would not supply offensive weapons that would be used in an attack the US believes will be disastrous.

“We’re going to continue to make sure Israel is secure in terms of Iron Dome and their ability to respond to attacks that came out of the Middle East recently,” he said. “But it’s just wrong. We’re not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells.”

US officials made clear that the pause would not be a one-off if the Rafah offensive went ahead: other arms deliveries that have already been approved could be delayed, and shipments waiting for approval could also face obstacles, such as a pending consignment of 6,500 joint direct attack munitions, or JDAMs, which convert freefall “dumb bombs” into precision-guided weapons.

A Guardian investigation this week found a US-made JDAM was used in a March airstrike in southern Lebanon that killed seven health workers. Analysis of debris found at the site of the attack revealed shrapnel from a 500lb (227kg) Israeli MPR bomb, as well as the parts of the JDAM that connect the munition to the guidance system and remnants of its motor.

The US administration has refused to use the phrase “red line” but has stressed that Biden was serious when he told Benjamin Netanyahu in a call on 4 April that an attack on Rafah would lead to a significant re-evaluation of the relationship.

The weapons – 1,800 2,000lb bombs and 1,700 500lb bombs – had long been seen by experts as the most likely to be targeted for any potential restrictions on arms supplies to Israel given how destructive they are in urban settings.

US officials insist that the pause is not because of legal concerns, but is a policy decision. There is nervousness in the administration about making legal judgments in case they are used against Israel in legal disputes before the international criminal court and the international court of justice.

However, the Guardian understands that conversations in recent months have focused on how the Israeli military’s use of certain munitions diverges from the Pentagon’s rules on the use of such weapons in heavily populated urban settings.

Israeli troops on Tuesday took control of the Palestinian side of the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt, a vital lifeline that is now closed. Israeli officials said it was the first step towards a full-scale assault on Rafah city.

Rafah’s mayor, Ahmed al-Sofi, warned that the southern city was “on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe of unprecedented proportions” in an appeal to the international community on Wednesday. “The streets of the city echo with the cries of innocent lives lost, families torn apart, and homes reduced to rubble,” he said.

The highly significant US move on arms supplies comes amid mounting international pressure on Israel to pull back from a full-scale attack on Rafah, and criticism of Israel’s use of large aerial munitions in areas packed with civilians.

Earlier, unnamed officials said the weapons shipment had been held up because of Israel’s threat of a full-scale offensive in Rafah.

“We are especially focused on the end use of the 2,000lb bombs and the impact they could have in dense urban settings as we have seen in other parts of Gaza,” one US official said. “We have not made a final determination on how to proceed with this shipment.”

A second US official, also speaking anonymously and quoted by the Washington Post, said the decision was a “shot across the bow” intended to convey to Israel the seriousness of US concerns about the Israeli offensive in Rafah.

An Israeli military spokesperson attempted to play down the shipment delay – saying that allies resolve any disagreements “behind closed doors”. However, the move appeared to mark a significant moment in US policy.

While the US, EU, UK and other countries have pursued an escalating sanctions campaign against extremist Israeli settlers and far-right organisations, against the background of the Gaza war and settler violence on the West Bank, US attention has moved recently to the Israel Defense Forces.

The weapons hold-up comes against the background of the expected delivery of a report by the US Department of State that examines whether Israel’s war conduct is credibly in compliance with assurances that American-supplied weapons will not be used in contravention of US and international humanitarian law.

The White House and Pentagon declined to comment.

Israeli forces on Tuesday seized the main border crossing between Gaza and Egypt in Rafah, cutting off a vital route for aid into the Palestinian territory. On Monday, the Israeli army had called on 100,000 people in eastern Rafah to evacuate.

Despite the assault in Rafah, the US has said it believes a revised Hamas ceasefire proposal may lead to a breakthrough as talks resume in Cairo. Israel had previously said the terms in the proposal had been softened, but the White House spokesperson John Kirby said the new text suggested the remaining gaps could “absolutely be closed”.

The CIA director, William Burns, is to travel to Israel on Wednesday to meet Netanyahu, a source said.

The delays to US arms shipments appeared to be the first since the Biden administration offered its full support to Israel after Hamas launched its 7 October attack, in which about 1,200 people were killed and about 250 others were abducted, of whom 133 are believed to still be in captivity in Gaza, according to Israeli tallies.

Israel’s campaign to destroy Hamas has led to a seven-month military campaign that has killed 34,789 Palestinians, most of them civilians, the Gaza health ministry has said.

Emphasis mine. Biden is playing it smart by allowing shipments of purely defensive weaponry (Iron Dome, etc); making it harder for any accusation of 'abandoning' Israel to stick.

It's too soon to say whether this will have much effect.

[Ralin]

My mistake. But Biden does seem to be doubling down on this.

Notably, Biden is on record slamming Reagan for it at the time

Emphasis mine. Biden is playing it smart by allowing shipments of purely defensive weaponry (Iron Dome, etc); making it harder for any accusation of 'abandoning' Israel to stick.

It's too soon to say whether this will have much effect.

1) Offensive and defensive weapons can blend into each other pretty freely. Not that I know the nitty gritty of how true that is here.

2) Helping the ethnic cleansing army fight off any return attacks while they commit massacres and ethnic cleansing isn't exactly a morally neutral act either

3) I have low confidence in Biden sticking to even that much

[EnterpriseSovereign]

On a related note, protestors for both sides turned up in Sweden because of Israel's participation in the Eurovision Song Contest, in last night's semi final they qualified. As a result as you would expect the protestors will double down for tomorrow's final.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Notably, Biden is on record slamming Reagan for it at the time

That would not surprise me much.

1) Offensive and defensive weapons can blend into each other pretty freely. Not that I know the nitty gritty of how true that is here.

2) Helping the ethnic cleansing army fight off any return attacks while they commit massacres and ethnic cleansing isn't exactly a morally neutral act either

3) I have low confidence in Biden sticking to even that much

1) Not really in this case. One does not use complex and expensive missile interceptors to flatten tower blocks. JDAMs do the job much better at a fraction of the price.

2) Bombing Israel will do no good here. It's a collectively traumatised society with serious trust issues regarding anyone and everyone unlike themselves. Allowing attacks risks the Israeli public rallying behind Netanyahu; when we really need is the Israeli public to get so sick of him that they finally force him from power. Also, as I said, allowing Israel defensive weapons makes the charge that Biden is abandoning Israel to destruction much less plausible.

3) I think he has no choice by this point. For one thing, to back down now would make him look weak and indecisive - more so than he does already - with an election months away and polls still against him. He is running out of options fast.

This article says it better than I can.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... amas-rafah

Joe Biden is desperate for this war to end – but neither Netanyahu nor Hamas is in any hurry
Jonathan Freedland

Failing to stop an all-out attack on Rafah would make the US president look weak – an unthinkable prospect in election year
Fri 10 May 2024 17.25 BST

Beware cornering a US president anxious about re-election. Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly ignored that advice in his dealings with Joe Biden, and this week his country learned the price.

It came in the revelation that Biden had withheld the supply of about 3,500 bombs, refusing to let US munitions play a part in an Israeli assault on the southern Gaza city of Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians have sought refuge. The president was at pains to say he was not giving up his “ironclad” commitment to Israel. Instead, it was just the specific, long-threatened Rafah operation that he would not back with weapons. “We’re not walking away from Israel’s security,” Biden told CNN. “We’re walking away from Israel’s ability to wage war in those areas.”

To understand why this is such a big deal, remind yourself of the people and the countries involved. The US is Israel’s most crucial ally. Israel’s former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin used to say that his country’s number one strategic asset was not this or that weapon – not even its unconfirmed, and undenied, nuclear arsenal – but its relationship with Washington. For many decades, the US has served as Israel’s chief arms supplier and diplomatic protector. And yet in the space of less than six weeks, Washington has withheld its veto at the UN security council, allowing a resolution to pass in late March that Israel wanted blocked, and now it has closed the doors to at least part of its armoury.

What’s more, these actions were taken by a man who is, by some distance, the most personally devoted supporter of Israel ever to sit in the Oval Office. Biden is a Democrat from the era when the notion of a restored Jewish homeland in the Middle East – promising an end to two millennia of exile and persecution – would turn US liberals misty-eyed. It takes little prompting for Biden to boast that he has met every Israeli leader since Golda Meir. Unlike past presidents, his affinity for Israel is not solely the product of electoral calculation: as his Jewish supporters put it, it’s in his kishkes. It’s in his guts.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu came to prominence in the 1980s as an Israeli diplomat who spoke fluent American. He offered himself then and since as an expert on the US political landscape, a crucial skill for a would-be Israeli leader. For decades, his message to the Israeli electorate has been that only he – who stands in “another league” above his domestic rivals – can be trusted with the all-important US-Israel relationship.

But look at the state of it now. Biden has become the first US president in more than four decades to deny Israel military aid in this way. (Ronald Reagan conveyed US fury after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 by delaying a consignment of fighter planes.) And why has he done it? Because, under Netanyahu, a growing section of the US public is souring on Israel as never before.

It’s true that a bedrock level of support for the country exists that may surprise those seeing daily footage of US campuses in ferment. When Gallup asked Americans in March where their sympathies lay, 51% stood with Israel, while 27% backed the Palestinians. But among Democrats and young people, it’s the Palestinians who prevail, by eight-point margins in both cases.

Those are the numbers that weigh on Biden and his re-election team, as they face the unravelling of the coalition that defeated Donald Trump in 2020. A period of newly intense suffering in Gaza will alienate yet more of the voters they need to win. The White House asked Netanyahu to show them a plan that would achieve a goal they regarded as legitimate – the removal from Rafah of Hamas’s last remaining battalions – but without risking mass civilian casualties. Netanyahu could not do it. Which is why Washington has resorted to a more direct means of making him stop.

It’s become a test of strength that Biden cannot afford to lose. He made an all-out attack on Rafah a red line: if Netanyahu crosses it, that makes Biden look weak. Facing an opponent, Trump, determined to make strong v weak the defining choice of the coming election, he cannot let that stand.

But still Netanyahu refuses to buckle, telling his people ahead of Israeli independence day that they will fight alone, without US arms, with their fingernails, if they have to. He wants to sound Churchillian, but these are words of weakness, not strength. For he is pulled in two directions: Washington wants him to stay out of Rafah, while his far-right coalition partners, the ultra-nationalists Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, insist he go in hard, to finish the job and win a “total victory” over Hamas.

US support may be essential for Israel’s national interest, but in a contest of Biden v Ben-Gvir, there was only going to be one winner. Without the latter’s support, Netanyahu loses his coalition. Suddenly, he will have to face the voters itching to punish him for the failures that led to 7 October, as well as the courts, for a resumed trial on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. Which is why he will always buckle to the bigots to his right. It may have Netanyahu’s name on it, but this is Ben-Gvir’s government now.

It’s the same logic that has led Netanyahu to drag his feet in talks to broker a ceasefire and release the Israeli hostages still held in the darkness by Hamas. Biden wants him to do a deal, because Biden needs this war over. The Israeli public want him to do a deal, because they are desperate to bring the captives home. But Ben-Gvir is the man who opposed the last and only agreed hostage release deal, back in November. He prefers to keep pounding Gaza, harder and harder, in search of an illusory and impossible victory. And because that’s what Ben-Gvir wants, that’s what Netanyahu gives him – even if it means pushing Biden into an ever tighter corner.

Still, Biden and Netanyahu are not the only players in this bleak drama. Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s leader in Gaza, has his own calculations, his own determination to remain in charge. Those who have studied him closely believe his priority is not so much an end to the killing of innocent civilians – on the contrary, the more Gazans who die, the more damage that does to the international standing of his enemy, Israel – but rather a scenario that allows him to claim victory. Sinwar thought he had that earlier this week, with the deal Hamas loudly accepted. The stumbling block is the agreed duration of any cessation of violence. Sinwar does not want it to be temporary, even if that would save many lives and ease the misery of Gaza. He wants a declaration that the war is permanently over. And for that he can wait.

And so there is no deal, because neither Netanyahu nor Sinwar believes what’s on offer serves their interests. As the former US state department official Aaron David Miller puts it: “The only party that’s really in a hurry is Biden.” Though that’s not quite right. Also in a hurry are the hostages and their families, whose agony has endured for more than 200 days, and the civilians of Rafah, huddled in tents, grieving their tens of thousands of dead, without running water or sanitation. They’re in a hurry too. But no one is listening to them.

[Ralin]

1) Not really in this case. One does not use complex and expensive missile interceptors to flatten tower blocks. JDAMs do the job much better at a fraction of the price.

Yeah, but you can also have situations where there's a less obvious but necessary thingie several steps removed from the weapon that gets fired which causes the entire logistics chain to shit itself if there's a shortage, and that thingie could have multiple uses. I don't know enough to know if that's going to be the case here so I default to assuming it might be.

2) Bombing Israel will do no good here. It's a collectively traumatised society with serious trust issues regarding anyone and everyone unlike themselves. Allowing attacks risks the Israeli public rallying behind Netanyahu; when we really need is the Israeli public to get so sick of him that they finally force him from power. Also, as I said, allowing Israel defensive weapons makes the charge that Biden is abandoning Israel to destruction much less plausible.

If bombing the Israelis back isn't going to do any good against the Israeli terror bombing I'm really not sure what the Palestinian fighters and their much, much more collectively traumatized society are supposed to do.

3) I think he has no choice by this point. For one thing, to back down now would make him look weak and indecisive - more so than he does already - with an election months away and polls still against him. He is running out of options fast.

If polls and elections were what was driving Biden here the smart, not moral but smart, thing to do would have been to start from the normal business as usual level of support for Israel. That would have satisfied Zionism supporters and still probably been enough for people appalled by the ethnic cleansing to grimace and vote for him anyway. He can't back down now without looking like he's betraying Israel because he went several steps beyond that and set it as a baseline from the beginning.

I haven't seen anything to make me think that Biden isn't willing to lose the election if that's the cost of supporting Israel. The guy clearly has principles. His principles are just evil ones.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Netanyahu's strategy for Gaza: A perpetual cycle of conflict to keep his power

As someone who has covered the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for almost a quarter of a century, I’m starting to see Israel’s plan for Gaza and it’s grim. Forget a post-war vision, it’s more war in perpetuity.

The Sunni-led Arab states, especially the rich Gulf nations, have signalled their willingness to fund the vast reconstruction effort that will be required if this latest spasm of violence ever abates.

Ultra-optimists can see Gaza becoming Dubai-on-the-Med, but what Mr Netanyahu, and the Jewish supremacists - those on the Israeli far-right who make up his cabinet - may have in mind, is more Somalia-on-the-Med.

The monstrous assault on southern Israel carried out by Hamas on October 7 convinced the rest of the world about the need for conflict resolution.

But the reaction of most Israelis was entirely different. The murderous rampage convinced them that conflict resolution is impossible.

Or perhaps it’s better to say, it confirmed for them that resolving things is impossible. After all that’s what Mr Netanyahu has been telling them throughout his almost unbroken tenure as their prime minister since 2009.

Now, the rest of the world is saying there can be no going back to the situation on October 6, but it looks like that is what Mr Netanyahu is banking on, albeit with a greatly weakened Hamas in control of Gaza.

Among the many things that is testing America’s patience is Israeli’s reluctance to discuss ‘the day after’ - the governance of post-war Gaza.

Washington has come up with several options, including a revitalised Palestinian Authority (PA) taking control with the backing of pan-Arab security forces.

Mr Netanyahu can’t be seen to endorse this because many in his cabinet are dreaming about re-establishing Jewish settlements in Gaza and don’t want the PA anywhere near the place.

Mr Netanyahu may conclude that his least worst option is to leave a weak Hamas in charge. Under that scenario a lot of his problems disappear.

Calls for a two-state solution will fade; the war in the form of targeted air and drone strikes can go on; and so can his rule.

If ‘the day after’ never dawns then neither does Mr Netanyahu’s day of reckoning.

It’s a cynical and depressing concept, but that doesn’t make it unlikely or unrealistic.

Basically what we knew already.

Saw a repeat of this episode of American Dad and this became VERY accurate.

[Broomstick]

How do you know if someone charged with a crime is 100% guilty?

When they start making violent threats against the court and prosecutors -and their families.

Case in point:

Twelve senators signed an open letter threatening the International Criminal Court with military action if they issue arrest warrants for Natanyahu and the other butchers of Gaza.

I don't see any threat of "military action" anywhere in that letter, the text makes for interesting reading.

It invokes the Service Members Protection Act of 2002, which calls for the use of military force should the ICC prosecute American war criminals. It's also known as the Invade the Hague Act.

Er.... Netanyahu & Co. aren't American.....

Not that that fact would stop crazies....

[Broomstick]

What exactly does victory look like, other than all the Palestinians eventually being dead?

I mean I know the cruelty is the point, but specifically, what's the difference? Gaza looks pretty fucking conquered to me. Has been for awhile.

Bezalel Smotrich, Israeli Minister of Finance, has blatantly racist opinions with a side order of apartheid and genocide.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israeli Minister of National Security who, by the way, as of 2007 is a convicted criminal (incitement to racism and supporting a terrorist organization), is no better

I believe that for some in the current Israeli government yes, the eventual end goal is to kill every last Palestinian. Or at the very least permanently remove them from the Middle East.

This is the point where some of my Jewish friends/acquaintances will start saying "But Hamas...! But October 7...!" Yes, that was horrific and there are many in Hamas that want to kill all the Jews. That is not at all negated by pointing out there are Jews who want to kill all Palestinians. Both groups are evil. It's not good guys vs. bad guys, it's bad guys vs. bad guys with good people and innocents caught in the crossfire.

[Gandalf]

Er.... Netanyahu & Co. aren't American.....

Not that that fact would stop crazies....

The act also covers allied nations.

[Gamerzone]

Er.... Netanyahu & Co. aren't American.....

Not that that fact would stop crazies....

The act also covers allied nations.

But let's think rationally, from what I understand that act also allows Americans to intervine? If so in what crazy scenario that would be, I don't believe it will be put to use, it's a "just in case" back up plan

[Rogue 9]

Benny Gantz has threatened to quit the government and seek new elections if Netanyahu does not change course. NPR

A member of Israel's war cabinet says he'll quit if there is no plan to replace Hamas
Updated May 18, 2024 7:08 PM ET
Daniel Estrin

TEL AVIV, Israel — A key member of Israel's war cabinet said Saturday he would quit the government in three weeks if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not advance a plan to replace Hamas in Gaza.

The ultimatum by Benny Gantz, a former army chief and current minister in Israel's three-member war cabinet, reflects growing discontent among Israel's leadership about the protracted war in Gaza and Netanyahu's far-right political partners. The move could pose a significant challenge to the stability of Netanyahu's government.

Netanyahu leads the military offensive in Gaza through his three-member war cabinet with Gantz and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. Both men in the span of a few days have accused the prime minister of neglecting an exit strategy from Gaza that would see another Palestinian civilian entity take over governing the territory. Gallant aired his criticism of Netanyahu's handling of the war in a speech Thursday.

In his speech and in a letter to Netanyahu on Saturday, Gantz presented a six-point plan he demanded the prime minister adopt by June 8: Prioritizing the return of Israeli hostages from Gaza; returning Israeli civilians displaced by fighting near the restive Lebanon border to their homes by September; advancing a normalization deal for diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia; creating a governing body, overseen by the U.S., European and Arab parties, and unspecified Palestinians, to manage Gaza's civilian affairs after the war; and agreeing to a law for equal military and national service including ultra-Orthodox Jews who have long been exempt.

"We need a strategic reversal," Gantz said in his televised speech. To Netanyahu, he said, "The choice is in your hands ... it is the moment of truth."

Gantz, a centrist, said if Netanyahu did not agree to his plan, he would quit the government and seek an agreed-upon date for early national elections.

Netanyahu relies on the support of far-right politicians for his governing coalition, many of whom have a different vision for Gaza's future: to encourage Palestinians to leave and to claim the territory as Israeli by building Jewish settlements there. Some of them also say Israel's military campaign in Gaza takes precedence to a negotiated deal with Hamas for the return of Israeli hostages.

Netanyahu has resisted calls by the U.S. for Hamas to be replaced with a reformed Palestinian Authority, a Western-backed Palestinian leadership. He also opposes the idea of a future Palestinian state, which Saudi Arabia has seen as a precondition for a normalization deal with Israel.

If Gantz quits the government, it would not automatically topple Netanyahu's coalition. But it would remove a key counterweight to Netanyahu's far-right partners, leaving Netanyahu with little room to maneuver between U.S. demands to wind down the war and his coalition's demands to intensify it.

If Netanyahu can keep his coalition intact until parliament goes on recess in late July, he could still hold onto power through the end of the year, political commentator Daphna Liel said on Israeli Channel 12.

Large demonstrations took place Saturday evening in Tel Aviv and across Israel demanding a deal to free the remaining Israeli hostages in Gaza, and calling for early elections. One Tel Aviv demonstration included speeches by family members of hostages, as well as the ambassadors of the U.S., U.K. and Germany, and a videotaped address by Hillary Clinton.

Jonathan Dekel-Chen, whose son, Sagui Dekel-Chen, was kidnapped by Hamas on Oct. 7, says that Netanyahu's government is not doing enough. "Not prioritizing the fate of the hostages, preferring to emphasize what they consider to be victory, their proposed victory in war," Dekel-Chen said.

"For me, and I think for the vast majority of the country — and demonstrations like this show it — all over the country, that the country doesn't agree with, that. The only victory for Israel, if there even is one, begins with the return of the hostages."

Also Saturday, Israel's army said it recently retrieved an additional body of an Israeli civilian killed on Oct. 7 and taken by Hamas militants to Gaza, along with three other bodies of Israelis. Israel says 128 hostages are believed to remain in Gaza, including 38 whom Israel has declared as dead.

Gaza health officials report more than 80 Palestinians killed in the past day

Heavy fighting continued across the Gaza Strip on Saturday, including in eastern Rafah, as health officials there report more than 80 Palestinians killed in the past day. The U.N. reports women and children were among those killed in Israeli strikes in recent days. Several Israeli soldiers were killed this week by friendly fire. Israel says troops located tunnel shafts and weapons facilities, and killed militants.

The head of the U.N.'s main agency in Gaza says nearly half of the population of Rafah, or around 800,000 Palestinians, have fled the southern Gaza city since Israeli troops entered the eastern part of the city two weeks ago.

In the occupied West Bank, rare Israeli airstrikes killed a prominent Palestinian militant in the city of Jenin, Israel's military said. Along the Lebanon-Israel border, Israel struck Hezbollah targets, and there was fire from Lebanon onto Israel.

Also Saturday, the U.S. military said the first trucks of aid moved ashore from a floating pier off Gaza, with the aim of alleviating hunger in Gaza. U.N. officials said more than double the amount of aid expected to be delivered by sea is needed to meet the need in Gaza.

Alon Avital, Hadeel Al-Shalchi and Lauren Migaki contributed to this story from Tel Aviv.

[Ralin]

Er.... Netanyahu & Co. aren't American.....

Not that that fact would stop crazies....

The act also covers allied nations.

But let's think rationally, from what I understand that act also allows Americans to intervine? If so in what crazy scenario that would be, I don't believe it will be put to use, it's a "just in case" back up plan

What part of any of this in general or the 'Invade the Hague' act in particular makes you think rationally thought out actions and goals will be the order of the day as opposed to crazy evil shit?