Trump gives update on possible Gaza ceasefire

[Twiglets1]

Donald Trump says that a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza is “close” and could be reached “within the next week”.

• He made the comments late on Friday, indicating he had spoken with individuals involved in the ongoing negotiations.
• The US administration has been working on a deal following Israel's strikes in April, which shattered a previous two-month truce.
• Hamas has expressed willingness to release remaining hostages under a deal to end the war, while Israel insists on Hamas being disarmed and dismantled.
• Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer is scheduled to visit Washington for talks with Trump administration officials regarding Gaza, Iran, and a potential visit by Benjamin Netanyahu.

https://www.independent.co.uk/bulletin/news/gaza-ceasefire-israel-hamas-trump-b2778708.html

I think Israel should stop settler expansion to allow an internationally accepted border between Gaza and Israel and the west bank and Israel. Israel is never going to give up sovereignty of the land it effectively governs so realistically you have to start there. We can't have some fantastical situation where a UN force drives backs the IDF from parts of the west bank.....such thoughts are for the birds.

So Gaza and the West Bank with Jerusalem as a joint capital??? That would be the only solution yet the Palestinians will always hold a grievance about their lost territory and the existence of Israel.

I don't know what the solution is but Israel is going to exists as a state with its current borders and we work from there.

I don’t think the Israeli government wants to give Palestinians a state. They recently approved the biggest expansion of settlements and the death toll in the West Bank of innocent Palestinians is the highest it’s been for 20 years.

I am going through perimenopause at the moment, and the lady on TikTok who started the "We do not care" club is currently my personal hero, so I will preface with saying that I am at a point in life where I just say what I say, it is always the truth as I see it, and without question some will not like it.

There's no question in my head that both people's have a right to live independently in the place they roughly consider to be home. That includes living as they choose, under whatever political and value system suits them and, importantly, in a way that guarantees they are not oppressed for their identity.

I don't think it matters one iota that Muslims were a majority in 1916 - of course they bloody were. Jews in the land of Israel / Palestine had been through two significant genocides, ethically cleansed, banned from buying land, subjugated under law and generally made miserable for millennia by successive groups. That is going to result in you being a minority and it doesn't erase your right to be there or to self-determine.

So given these are two very different groups with extremely different ideas on what they think life should be, not to mention very long ranging mutual animosity, there is no way to do this without a two state solution.

IMO there is potential down the road for the two to become very friendly, but that is determinant on whether or not the Palestinians are willing to deradicalize from their current position. To be specific, am I saying all Palestinians are radical Islamist terrorists?

No.

But I do think we need to look the issue square in the eye and say they have been radicalised for generations to Jew hate, to normalising murder and violence and so on and this sadly means they pose a risk to Jews at the present time.

Sorry to say that, but it is true IMO.

Can you imagine seeing bodies of young women paraded through your hometown and chasing the truck cheering? Can you imagine your village attending some ghastly funeral / celebration for two babies your government kidnapped and strangled to death? No. It really isn't normal. And no amount of oppression creates that. It's cultural.

I am not Palestinian, but I recall my sister at kindergarten being made to dress in military clothes and march and chant for death to America. The best marcher would be rewarded with trying a gun, or even going for a tank drive. This sounds mad, but it was honestly completely normal. And it has to change.

While I am absolutely certain many Palestinians are scared, oppressed themselves and good people - not a single one stepped forward on 7 Oct to stand against it. Not a single one has given up the location of a hostage. Really think about that. It says a lot.

So IMO, there is work to be done before Jews would realistically be safe around a Palestinian population, but once they are, then I hope they can become friendly. Every Arab or Muslim I have spoken to who once hated Jews, stopped hating Jews by spending time with them and realising they are completely fine people and often very similar to Arabs in many ways.

But we speak here about two sides, neither of which is keen on a two-state solution, so I will tell it as I see it.

For Palestinians, they had reasons to feel they owned the lot. They had dominated it for a long time, they had ruled over Jews as subordinates, and they had been free to live wherever they wanted and from their perspective it belongs 100% to them. This ideology is not helped by the fact that they are taught nonsense versions of history. So it was easy from day one for them to say they would never accept any Jewish state. I would add that whilst they might ask for one, IMO they have been offered more than reasonable compromises and turned them all down and that I saw a Hamas spokesperson say last year that they would use a state as a platform from which to attack and annihilate Jews. So as far as I see it, they are a really long way from genuinely wanting two separate, thriving states.

For Israelis, they came at it from a different perspective. They'd had nowhere of their own for 1500 years, and they'd tried pretty hard to live amongst others but it just wasn't working. After centuries of mad persecution and pogroms, they'd just been almost exterminated out of Europe. People will rightly point out that their position in the middle east and north africa was better, and it was, but it was also not a permanent, realistic set-up. For a start, they were not even legal citizens of any of the places they lives, even after presence there for almost 3000 years. They were denied basic rights like buying land or being in government. They were subjected to many, many pogroms and the whims of whatever leader came along and decided to exile or harass them. It was shit. And understandably they wanted independence in the place they came from.

So I think they approached it from the outset as having nothing and getting something, which whilst still less than 30% of what was originally Israel, it was a lot better than nothing.

So this is ultimately why one group started off keen to make peace and the other group started out absolutely committed to the destruction of the other.

I do think Jews, and Israel have tried in a pretty honest way to make peace with Arabs - not just in Palestine but everywhere, but there are limits to what you can do with people who are quite literally trying to exterminate you. The two groups don't play by the same rules and do not have the same goals and to be really honest with you, when Gazans parachuted into Israel and butchered, raped and kidnapped completely innocent people in such massive numbers - Israelis had just had enough.

Whether right or wrong, everyone here is only human, and 8 decades of people trying to kill you is a lot. I think they were angry. I think they remain angry, and the grotesque parading of hostages continues to pick at the wound. So it's unsurprising they are not trying to make peace plans. Would you be?

But when all of it is dealt with, Jews do not hold grudges. They don't hate Europeans who exterminated their grandparents, they don't hate the Arabs who exiled them. They just wanted to get on with living and I think if someone said tomorrow they could make a two state deal with some sacrifices ans that would give them peace, they would do it.

And because they are a democracy, what individual politicians thought would be of no consequence.

But I don't think Israel should make concessions, which is what you asked. I think they made them all, for decades and it's gotten them nowhere. I think it's time finally to hold both groups to the same standard.

No more normalising firing rockets at civilians.
No more aid money used for pay-to-slay.
No more European funded education where kids learn to kill Jewish people.
No more double standards.

It's time now really for Palestinians to begin recognising their part in this. That if they want freedom to import / export or travel into Israel they have to stop trying to kill Jews. They have to accept that if 2 million Arabs can live safely and equally and be friendly with their Jewish neighbours that maybe they should offer the same in Palestinian territories.

I realise Israel has played a part in it becoming as it has and some behavior by settlers has been utterly atrocious, but I am personally at a point now where I am asking myself, "why do they need to settle? Why should Jews not be able to live in the ancient lands they have been tied to for 3000 years"? So by that I mean that they should be able to live there in just the same way Arabs can live in Israel proper.

2 million Arabs are welcome and live safely and equally in Israel. Rather than demanding Jews leave the west bank, or Judea and Samaria, why not instead demand that 2 million of them are allowed to do the same? Isn't that more what justice looks like?

Fairness aside, Gaza, and indeed Afghanistan, Yemen and other places are shining examples of the fact that ethnically cleansing places isn't a good idea. It stops people mixing and learning from one another and I guarantee you when you strip the meaningless nonsense politics out of the situation, Jews and Muslims have a LOT in common. Particularly Mizrahi and Sephardic Jews. And they really should be living together as cousins, friends, and equals.

They need to learn this.

Not to have the message reenforced that justice = ethnically cleansing Jews from Jewish ancestral land.

The whole situation has escalated because no one was willing to set the standards of behavior for both parties. There has always been one standard for Israel where they have to behave perfectly, whilst the Palestinians can do whatever they like and return none of the same conditions and people just say "oh yes, but the nakba".

Sigh.

I can't count but honestly, since 1920 literally tens of millions of people have been displaced, myself included. Life doesn't get better by becoming terrorists or trying to annihilate people for stuff that happened 80 years ago.

Jews knows this better than anyone.

It's unfortunately time everyone learned this.

You are of course entitled to your opinion and I would not want you to deny you the opportunity to give it freely.

I hope you take my response in equal spirit.

”I don't think it matters one iota that Muslims were a majority in 1916 - of course they bloody were. Jews in the land of Israel / Palestine had been through two significant genocides, ethically cleansed, banned from buying land, subjugated under law and generally made miserable for millennia by successive groups. That is going to result in you being a minority and it doesn't erase your right to be there or to self-determine.”

The history of the region is fascinating- from the Bronze Age onwards- potentially due to its location. The area was repeatedly conquered- eg Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Alexander the Great, Jews, Romans, Christian crusaders, and the Ottoman Empire finally ruled the area from 1500s. There was significant flux in the rulers - and to focus this on the subjugation of Jews is simplistic.

The Ottoman Empire used a system called the millet system to manage its diverse religious communities. It allowed some autonomy to distinct religious groups, including on legal matters, education, and tax collection. Jewish people were able to buy land through same legal means as others. Most of the land at the turn of the century was not owned by indigenous Muslim Arabs but by absentee landlords, and the Palestinians were tenant farmers. I am not sure it was Palestinians subjugating local Jewish people.

The population of Jewish people increased during the Ottoman empire- as they welcomed Jews fleeing Europe. The Jews and Arabs were existing peacefully pre- Balfour, and I think it’s unfair to say the animosity against Jews is cultural. You can easily find resources on the internet which provide evidence of this - prior to the rise of Zionism. It was following this that Jews were expelled from neighbouring countries.

“Can you imagine seeing bodies of young women paraded through your hometown and chasing the truck cheering? Can you imagine your village attending some ghastly funeral / celebration for two babies your government kidnapped and strangled to death? No. It really isn't normal. And no amount of oppression creates that. It's cultural.”

We are all genetically over 99 % similar. The environment is what creates the difference. Not all Gazans will have condoned the behaviour of Hamas, but why do you think some might? You seem to absolve Israel of responsibility for the conditions it has created for Palestinians. It’s not for no reason that in international law they were considered to still be occupying Gaza. I would also blame the Palestinian politicians, but Israel has cleverly divided opportunity for joined up working between Palestinian leadership, allowing funds to reach Hamas. America also were never honest brokers for peace, creating terms that favoured Israel.

“I realise Israel has played a part in it becoming as it has and some behavior by settlers has been utterly atrocious, but I am personally at a point now where I am asking myself, "why do they need to settle? Why should Jews not be able to live in the ancient lands they have been tied to for 3000 years"? So by that I mean that they should be able to live there in just the same way Arabs can live in Israel proper.”

Jews have not been tied to the land for 3000 years- as above, there has been huge flux in the populations and what the settlers are doing now is driving Arabs off their land, burning their homes and crops. You speak about Jews being able to live like Arabs in the settlements- but Israeli laws favour Jews here. Read this: https://www.btselem.org/publications/summaries/200205_land_grab

There are different ways of interpreting history - but yours seems quite anti- Palestinian without reflecting on the conditions imposed on them.

As you said:
“ Sigh”

Of course, it is taken in the same spirit:

To focus this on the subjugation of Jews is simplistic.
The Jews are the ones who wanted independence, so the focus is on them. Were any other group in the same position, I would feel the same way.

The Ottoman Empire used a system called the millet system to manage its diverse religious communities. It allowed some autonomy to distinct religious groups, including on legal matters, education, and tax collection.
I am sorry but I really hate these kinds of statements. The rights Jews Did Not Have under the Ottoman Millet System were political equity or the right to represent themselves, equal legal standing in court, additional taxes, religious restrictions, restrictions on what they could wear, they were expected to yield and show deference to Muslims in the street, and very, very flimsy rights to property. I am ashamed of it, and I am ashamed we still deny how wrong this was.

Jewish people were able to buy land through same legal means as others.
No they weren't. Muslims were allowed to immigrate freely and buy whatever land they liked. Jewish land purchase was strictly controlled and immigration was in 1882 the Ottoman Sultan issued orders banning land sales to foreign Jews in Palestine. It's important to be clear that they were not given the same freedoms as Muslims.

I am not sure it was Palestinians subjugating local Jewish people.
Of course, it wasn't, it was the Islamic Ottoman empire.

The population of Jewish people increased during the Ottoman empire- as they welcomed Jews fleeing Europe.
The Jewish population in Palestine did increase during the Ottoman Empire, particularly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as Jews fleeing persecution in Europe sought refuge. The Ottomans had a long history of offering sanctuary, notably welcoming Sephardic Jews expelled from Spain in the 15th century and, later, some Ashkenazi Jews escaping pogroms in Eastern Europe. So it is true that was the case. However when they realised Jewish numbers were increasing they banned migration. Which is fair enough to be honest, but it is not the case that Jews could freely move to or live in the place they came from.

The Jews and Arabs were existing peacefully pre- Balfour
“Peaceful coexistence” ignores the deep power imbalance. Jews were dhimmis, second-class citizens under Islamic rule, and were subject to discriminatory laws, including the jizya tax, clothing restrictions, and legal inferiority. They co-existed peacefully so long as Jews accepted that. And would you?

“Can you imagine seeing bodies of young women paraded through your hometown and chasing the truck cheering? Can you imagine your village attending some ghastly funeral / celebration for two babies your government kidnapped and strangled to death? No. It really isn't normal. And no amount of oppression creates that. It's cultural.”
We are all genetically over 99 % similar. The environment is what creates the difference. Not all Gazans will have condoned the behaviour of Hamas, but why do you think some might?
I cannot picture any scenario, on any planet where people in my road - even one single person - would do that. Despite 80 years of conflict and the most terrible atrocities inflicted on Israelis, I have never seen them once take a body to Tel Aviv and have a crowd cheering as they drove it through. As I said, it is cultural. I did not say genetic. It is what comes from grooming people from birth to glorify murder.

It’s not for no reason that in international law they were considered to still be occupying Gaza.
They are considered to be occupying Gaza because they have a blockade on Gaza. If they did not have a blockade on Gaza, October 7 would have been on a much larger scale or they perhaps would even have succeeded with the annihilation they openly state they intend, so I don't judge Israel for having the blockade. I think anyone who does (including the international community) should come out and say they would like Israel to be annihilated, because that is what they really mean.

I would also blame the Palestinian politicians, but Israel has cleverly divided opportunity for joined up working between Palestinian leadership, allowing funds to reach Hamas. America also were never honest brokers for peace, creating terms that favoured Israel.
There is a lot of blame shifting here. At the end of the day if Hamas or Fatah wanted to create stable, flourishing states with human rights, peace and a nice and safe life for citizens, pretty much nobody has stopped them. The reason why they haven't done that isn't a secret, they openly explain that terrorising Israel is their job and looking after their citizens needs is a matter for the UN.

Jews have not been tied to the land for 3000 years- as above
As we cannot DNA test people for racial purity, I think a fair position is this: 2 million Arab Palestinians live in equality and safety in Israel. It is time the Palestinian leaderships offered the same to Jews.

Israeli laws favour Jews
Yes, and Palestinian laws include:

• Under Palestinian Authority law, selling land to “the enemy” (defined as Israelis or Jews) is punishable by death (Several Palestinians have been arrested, tortured, or even executed (extrajudicially or by militia) for selling land to Jews)
• they refuse recognition of Israel and deny they have any right to even be there.
• There is NO right of residency or citizenship for Jews
• Official PA school textbooks and media erase Jewish history, deny Jewish connections to Jerusalem and Hebron, and promote narratives that portray Jews as invaders or usurpers.
• Their maps omit Israel entirely.
• Jews are banned from certain places and are not allowed to pray or visit sacred sites like: Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus (unless heavily escorted). Parts of Hebron, without full IDF security. These sites have been repeatedly desecrated and are treated as solely Islamic.
• “Pay to Slay” is a real and confirmed policy of the Palestinian Authority, in which it financially rewards those who commit violent acts against Jews and Israelis.

I am sorry if you feel my interpretation of these facts is anti-palestinian, but I think that the conditions imposed on them are almost entirely political choices of their leadership.

I simply do not countenance the idea that one side should give everything and be perfect while the other side openly pays it's citizens to murder the people living next door.

And while I completely agree Palestinians have is bad, I blame their leadership almost entirely for that. I can't read minds, but I'd imagine Israelis would be really pleased if they'd just make peace and stop trying to kill them or exile them - everything I have ever seen or heard supports that.

IDF presence in Gaza 'only issue' still to be resolved in push for Israel-Hamas ceasefire

Two sources with direct knowledge of the negotiations have told Sky News that disagreement between Israel and Hamas remains on the presence of Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) inside Gaza.

The issue cuts to the heart of the choice facing Israel - to end the war and withdraw from Gaza with all the hostages but with Hamas remaining as an entity, or to militarily occupy Gaza indefinitely.

The two sides have bridged significant differences on several other issues, including the process of delivering humanitarian aid and Hamas's demand that the US guarantees to ensure Israel doesn't unilaterally resume the war when the ceasefire expires in 60 days.

On the issue of humanitarian aid, Sky News understands that a third party that neither Hamas nor Israel has control over will be used in areas from which the IDF withdraws.

This means that the controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) - jointly run by an American organisation and Israel - will not be able to operate anywhere where the IDF is not deployed. It will limit GHF expansion plans.

It is believed the United Nations or other recognised humanitarian organisations will adopt a greater role.

news.sky.com/story/idf-presence-in-gaza-only-issue-still-to-be-resolved-in-push-for-israel-hamas-ceasefire-sky-news-understands-13394301

@Twiglets1 thanks for the updates.

I have read (unverified reports) that Trump has promised Netanyahu with normalisation ties with Syria if he ends the war.

You can take this with a big pinch of salt for now.

To focus this on the subjugation of Jews is simplistic.
The Jews are the ones who wanted independence, so the focus is on them. Were any other group in the same position, I would feel the same way.

To me, it seems bizarre to state a land belongs to you from a claim millennia ago. You say you don’t care an iota that Muslims were the majority in 1917, but to a lot of people including Palestinians it did and does. We are now seeing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in Gaza and WB in the most barbaric way.

I agree the millet system did not allow complete equity but it was an effective method of managing a large empire. It also meant that Jews were not expelled or forcibly converted, as was happening in Europe.

““Peaceful coexistence” ignores the deep power imbalance. Jews were dhimmis, second-class citizens under Islamic rule, and were subject to discriminatory laws, including the jizya tax, clothing restrictions, and legal inferiority. They co-existed peacefully so long as Jews accepted that. And would you?”

It was far from ideal and I can completely understand why more equality was desired. Isn’t this what is happening in Israel too- there are differential laws applied, and hence claims of apartheid, including differential land purchase laws. You could argue this is in response to Israel establishing themselves as a state and complex safety situation, but the impact has been to be make it increasingly difficult for Palestinians to establish a 2SS.

You note Hamas and Fatah, but seem not to mention the changes to the latter after the Abraham accords with the PLO/ PA, which appear to be corrupt and extension of Israeli occupation.

« As we cannot DNA test people for racial purity, I think a fair position is this: 2 million Arab Palestinians live in equality and safety in Israel. It is time the Palestinian leaderships offered the same to Jews. »
Completely agree and moreover would say that this should then mean relatives of Palestinian refugees have equal rights to move back to the region then? And not just Jews who have more distant links?

As for blockade of Gaza, yes I can see why they would want to control borders - but why at the same time allow millions of dollars get to Hamas. It served a purpose. One of the main concerns about Israel breaking international law was the restrictions on essential goods early on in the conflict and then again earlier this year. You can quibble about lack of starving children on your social media feed. Here’s an article for you to peruse
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/05/theyre-skin-and-bones-doctors-in-gaza-warn-babies-at-risk-of-death-from-lack-of-formula

@ForgesOfEmpires
The way I see it, history over the millennia has in fact no relevance here. International law over the century does. The EU - fervent allies of Israel - have even raised concerns about this, although it will be a different matter whether they decide to review association with Israel.

The claims wasn't that the land belonged to them millennia ago.

The claim was many things.

They (at the time) owned nearly as much land privately as Arabs did, and they had done great things with agriculture, creating jobs, schools, hospitals,they had as much if not more claim to the land. They had a deep religious and historical connection to the Land of Israel, especially Jerusalem and other ancient sites. They had maintained a continuous presence there for 3000 years. On top of that the Peel investigation concluded that Jewish and Arab nationalist aspirations were fundamentally incompatible. Arabs wanted independence and a halt to Jewish immigration. Jews wanted a secure national home and future majority in a place where they would not be subjugated. As such, the Commission said coexistence under a single state was unworkable, and partition was the only fair solution.

Do you think it would have been fairer if the world had created 23 Arab states and Jews had continued to be ethnically cleansed and subjugated? You may claim they would not have been but look at other similar communities across the middle east: Coptic Christians, Kurds, the Yazidis taken in their thousands as ISIS sex slaves, forcibly sterilised, genocide after genocide, burned alive for refusing to convert. Would that have made it right for you?

That aside, do you honestly believe that Jerusalem, and Judea, is Arab land historically? Most meaningful and culturally important to them? Do you honestly believe it would be some sort of global justice if Jerusalem was a place Jews could not live freely? Would it be all right is Muslims could not live freely in Mecca?

Why do you feel being a majority means others cannot have independence? Being a minority works when you live in a secular democracy like America, where minorities have equal rights that are forcible upheld. It does not work in places where minorities are subjugated or mistreated. Do you think Black people could have stayed in America if not for civil rights? Civil rights don't exist in these places, and they never have. Where I come from, if you run over someone of a lesser race with your car, nobody cares.

I agree the millet system did not allow complete equity but it was an effective method of managing a large empire. It also meant that Jews were not expelled or forcibly converted, as was happening in Europe.

Why not give everyone equal rights? Why not just NOT forcibly convert people? Why not just NOT exile people? Religious supremacy is a choice. Israel is living breathing proof that it was always a choice. In Israel, Arabs do not need to be dhimmi or have a millet system - they just get the same as everyone else. I appreciate your point here is that is was livable and Jews could have just settled for being second class citizens with no political rights or security but they are people who are just as worthy as Arabs or anyone else of having the same rights you enjoy.

It was far from ideal and I can completely understand why more equality was desired. Isn’t this what is happening in Israel too- there are differential laws applied, and hence claims of apartheid, including differential land purchase laws.
This is false. All people in Israel have the same rights. Identically. What you are talking about is the Palestinian territories, which is not Israel.

You could argue this is in response to Israel establishing themselves as a state and complex safety situation, but the impact has been to be make it increasingly difficult for Palestinians to establish a 2SS.
Nobody can read minds, but having spent 20 years following every move of this, I have never once had any inclination that anyone other than Palestine was blocking the 2SS. Every negotiation, every statement, every peace deal has always ended with them walking away because intimately they cannot accept Jewish self-determination. It is even in the Arab charter of human rights that all people deserve self determination, except Jews who it essentially implies are European colonisers, which is just not true. About half the Jews in Europe by 1950 had been in the middle east going back 2000 years or more.

I agree. Under International law Israel is a sovereign country and it is absolutely illegal for Hamas or any armed group to invade Israel, launch rockets at civilian areas, or seek its annihilation. Although by my count several have been doing all these things for decades.

These actions constitute grave breaches of international legal norms, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and potentially genocide, depending on the intent and scope of the violence.

The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. While Hamas is a non-state actor, that does not exempt it from responsibility under international law.

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols are clear: deliberately targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure is a war crime. Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups have repeatedly fired rockets into civilian areas of Israel without distinction. These are not military strikes with collateral damage-they are deliberate, often indiscriminate attacks designed to terrorize a civilian population.

In addition, the use of terror tactics -attacks meant to spread fear among civilians - constitutes a violation of the Geneva Convention. Such actions are also outlawed under numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning terrorism and the protection of civilians in armed conflict. Same applies to taking hostages.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines widespread or systematic attacks against civilians as crimes against humanity. Hamas’s repeated and large-scale targeting of civilians falls directly under this definition.

Launching attacks from civilian areas, including homes, schools, hospitals, and UN facilities, is also a serious breach of international law. This practice violates the principle of distinction, which requires parties to a conflict to distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants. It also breaches the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks that would cause excessive civilian harm in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Hamas’s use of human shields not only endangers civilians but also turns populated areas into legitimate military targets, thereby compounding the harm.

Furthermore, Hamas’s founding charter and ongoing public statements call for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews worldwide. This is not merely political rhetoric -it fits the legal definition of incitement to genocide under the Genocide Convention, which criminalises both direct and public incitement to commit genocide and attempts to commit genocide.

To be clear, under international law, it is entirely unlawful for Hamas or any other group to invade Israel, attack civilians, use human shields, fire rockets from within civilian infrastructure, or advocate for the destruction of a state and its people.

These actions are not forms of legitimate resistance or liberation - they are serious international crimes. International law applies to all parties in a conflict, and the standards must be upheld universally, not selectively. So in summary, if Hamas and other groups stopped doing these things - Israel would have no need for blockades or wars or any of the other things people are unhappy with.

But rather than come out and say that, there's seemingly a global effort to simultaneously ignore all of the above and either require Israel to keep tolerating it indefinitely, or even remove what they have in place for self defence. Utterly crazy!

No one’s going to argue with you that Hamas about broke international law. Of course they did.

I do expect a country, particularly a democratic ally of the West that gains from its association internationally, to be proportionate in its responses and abide by international law. To be seen not to risks international opprobrium.

All eyes remain on Israel at present as the 2ss, that you say you agree with, is fundamentally at risk as Israel now seeks to ethnically cleanse Gaza. Even the Telegraph- a right wing highly conservative UK paper - questioned Israel policy on this.

If another country invades your country, murders lots of people, very brutally, and takes your people hostage and refuses to give them back, and promises very publicly to do it again and again, showing support from multiple militias around the world who all start attacking you at the same time - what do you honestly think is a proportionate response?

I think getting your hostages back and ensuring the country that did it is completely disarmed and cannot do it again is a proportionate response.

@ForgesOfEmpires
”It was far from ideal and I can completely understand why more equality was desired. Isn’t this what is happening in Israel too- there are differential laws applied, and hence claims of apartheid, including differential land purchase laws.
This is false. All people in Israel have the same rights. Identically. What you are talking about is the Palestinian territories, which is not Israel.”

This is wrong. There are differential tax rates applied if you are Jewish and moving to Israel.
There are also restrictions on who can lease land- by far, majority is owned by the state, after it passed laws retrospectively to take ownership of land after 1948 war, or the Jewish National Fund.

Israel was happy to proceed with a 2ss solution that made impossible demands from Palestinians. They were unwilling to make concessions for Palestinians but expected Palestinians to make concessions for them. Hardly equitable.
https://jacobin.com/2020/10/israel-peace-palestine-oslo-accords-plo

Well its clear that you don’t either agree with or understand international law 🙃

There are no separate tax rates based on religion or ethnicity in Israel’s official tax code. Everyone - Jewish, Arab, Druze, Christian, atheist - pays the same income tax, VAT, property taxes, etc.

However, Jewish immigrants under the Law of Return (Aliyah) do receive immigration benefits, like reduced income tax for a while. These benefits are based on immigration status. Similarly I am currently looking into emigrating to Greece on a Nomad visa and am being offered similar terms (les the Hebrew!) because Greece wants to attract immigrants like me who WFH and earn well.

Israeli Arabs can and do lease public/state-owned land and The Israeli High Court has ruled that state land must be leased to all citizens equally, regardless of religion or ethnicity.

Neither of these things is remotely apartheid and to imply the world must dictate to Israel who it does and doesn't want to attract to migrate there is plain nuts!

Well I don't understand international law, you are right. My husband is a barrister and he also doesn't understand international law - it's complicated. But I do understand Google. And here's what the law says:

UN Charter, Article 51 – Right of Self-Defence

• A state has the inherent right to self-defence if an armed attack occurs.
• This includes military actions to prevent further attacks, dismantle hostile infrastructure, and secure the return of hostages.

Geneva Conventions

• These protect civilians and non-combatants during war.
• Proportionate response does not mean equal casualties. It means the military advantage must not be outweighed by excessive civilian harm.
• Hostage-taking is a grave breach of international humanitarian law (a war crime).

Proportionality in International Law:

• A proportionate response does not require responding “in kind” (e.g. matching the number of deaths).
• It permits eliminating the capacity of the attacker to carry out further assaults if that’s necessary to ensure security.
• Proportionality is judged in relation to the military objective, not the initial attack’s death toll.

If a state is attacked, its people are kidnapped, and threats continue from multiple armed groups, then military action to:

retrieve hostages,
destroy the attacking group's capabilities,
and prevent future attacks

can be legally proportionate, provided civilian harm is minimised and not excessive in relation to the direct military advantage.

So I feel pretty good about it. Feel free to provide any different parts of "international law" you think I am missing and I would be happy to run a check on it.

I am not sure I would rely on ChatGPT for legal advice - not very specific to the situation is it?

You could - if you genuinely wanted to know- read the report by independent international law lawyers. Pages 6- 8 covers it.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/240520-panel-report-eng.pdf

There have been a number of letters by lawyers in the issue too. Here’s a recent one:

https://lawyersletter.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Gaza-letter-26May25.pdf

As mentioned, married to a barrister and so one thing I do know is that lawyers do not give answers, they give advice and opinions. Which essentually means their interpretation of what a court would likely find, or even just their personal opinion based more around their own bias than any legal framework.

Law is law. In courts, judges listen to both arguments, evaluate the laws in question and make a judgment based on that. That judgement is an interpretation of the law and what I've quoted is the actual applicable international laws. Verbatim. It sounds to me like it supports what I said.

What you've shown me is the opinion of some lawyers and others, and I assure you there's plenty with the completely opposite view.

McDonald’s legal team argued in court that eating McDonald's food was actually be nutritious if consumed in the right quantities. They can actually argue anything they like. Plenty of very top legal minds are currently making an impassioned argument that women may or may not have penises.

So circling back to your initial criticism, "you obviously don't know international law", .....neither do you 😂 And even if you did, you'd still just be presenting your opinion. Mumsnet isn't a courtroom.

No, but I do value the opinion of specialists in the field who have seen the evidence versus ChatGPT 😁

I will admit, being AUDHD and not born here, it took me a really long time to understand British snark properly 😂- but I think I have got it now. I've been working at it but I am better at just being direct, so let's try that.

I stated earlier on: "I think getting your hostages back and ensuring the country that did it is completely disarmed and cannot do it again is a proportionate response".

To which you replied: Well its clear that you don’t either agree with or understand international law 🙃

Pretty much nobody is debating Israel's right to get their people back and take action to ensure Oct 7 is not repeated. It's the international consensus across Europe and from the USA and beyond..

The EU president: “I unequivocally condemn the attack carried out by Hamas terrorists against Israel… Israel has the right to defend itself against such heinous attacks.”

PM of The Netherlands: “Israel has the right to defend itself and must remove the threat of Hamas and do everything to free hostages”

UK Ambassador to the UN: "We support Israel's right to defend itself against Hamas, take back the hostages, deter further incursions, and strengthen its security for the long term.”

What there is back and forth over is whether or not Israel is going about those things in a legal way.

For example some argue that Israel is not doing enough to avoid civilian suffering, and some argue that Hamas is doing things like using hospitals for military purposes.

All that is being debated and is another matter entirely.

That is what the reports and links you sent me written by experts are talking about. They are not saying that what I said is against international law. Which was:

"I think getting your hostages back and ensuring the country that did it is completely disarmed and cannot do it again is a proportionate response".

Nothing whatever in my message refers to any specifics, the type of which you are arguing.

@ForgesOfEmpires
There is no right to break international law though is there?

I am sure you will be completely aware that the hostages released have been through times of negotiations and not conflict.

Israel’s own military leaders stated that they saw no further advantage of continuing the bombardment of Gaza some time ago. Trump is really raising the pressure for there to be a ceasefire now.

“For example some argue that Israel is not doing enough to avoid civilian suffering, and some argue that Hamas is doing things like using hospitals for military purposes.

All that is being debated and is another matter entirely.”

Then what you are debating? Isn’t that the crux of the matter about whether Israel broke international law?

“That is what the reports and links you sent me written by experts are talking about. They are not saying that what I said is against international law. Which was:
"I think getting your hostages back and ensuring the country that did it is completely disarmed and cannot do it again is a proportionate response".

This is - even in my opinion as a non-lawyer- reinforces my concerns you don’t understand international law. You still need to be proportionate!