Gaza war must continue
Speaking at a press briefing on Monday, Smotrich said Israel was 'in the midst of a campaign against a crushed terrorist organization' and warned that there would be 'no greater danger' to the country's future than halting the operation prematurely.
'This war must end in a decisive victory for many generations to come, without agreements, without mediators,' he said.
The remarks come amid growing internal divisions within the Israeli cabinet over the future of Operation Gideon's Chariots. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to reconvene his security cabinet later this week, after several failed attempts to reach consensus on a path forward.
Mediators Egypt and Qatar have been pushing a new deal that would pause fighting for 60 days in exchange for the release of some Israeli hostages and expanded humanitarian access to Gaza. The earlier US-backed ceasefire framework, brokered in January, collapsed in March when Israel resumed military operations.
Last week, Israel's military chief, Eyal Zamir, said that the current phase of the ground operation was close to achieving its goals. Israel has intensified its offensive in recent weeks following stalled talks over the fate of the remaining captives held by Hamas. Around 20 hostages are believed to still be alive.
The war was triggered by Hamas on October 7, 2023, with an attack that left some 1,200 Israelis dead and took about 250 hostage. Israel's response has been a sustained bombardment of Gaza, with much of the enclave now in ruins.
According to the Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza, over 56,000 Palestinians – mostly civilians – have been killed since the war began. The UN says more than 400 were killed while seeking aid after the Israeli and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) began operating in late May, following a three-month Israeli blockade.
On Monday, multiple Israeli media outlets reported that the IDF acknowledged civilian casualties near aid distribution points, while disputing the accuracy of the figures released by Hamas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
13 hours ago
- Russia Today
Nuclear inspectors leave Iran
A team of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has departed from Iran, the agency announced on Friday. Tehran suspended cooperation with the UN-affiliated nuclear watchdog following Israeli and US attacks on its nuclear facilities last month. The inspectors will 'return to the Agency headquarters in Vienna, after staying in Tehran throughout the recent military conflict,' the IAEA said in a statement. Tehran cooperated with the international watchdog for years, maintaining that it was enriching uranium for civilian use only. Israel has claimed that Tehran was secretly developing a nuclear weapon. On June 12, the IAEA accused Iran of violating a key safeguard agreement, without presenting any evidence. The following day, Israel launched strikes targeting Iranian nuclear scientists and uranium enrichment facilities. Tehran retaliated with counterstrikes and the US joined the Israeli operation. The war lasted for 12 days and ended in a US brokered ceasefire. US President Donald Trump declared that the Iranian nuclear program had been 'obliterated' by America's military action. The Iranian leadership has rejected the claim. Iran has long accused the IAEA of colluding with its adversaries. Officials in Tehran claimed that the agency provided Israel with the identities of nuclear scientists and intelligence about key facilities. Russia has condemned the IAEA's role in the conflict. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has said its data was used to plan the strikes, calling it 'a colossal blow' to the watchdog's credibility. The IAEA inspectors were housed in Tehran and were unable to visit Iran's nuclear sites following the 12-day conflict, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. The agency withdrew its inspectors from Iran 'over safety concerns,' the outlet added, citing sources. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi has stressed that it is crucial to negotiate with Iran to restart inspections and monitoring as soon as possible.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
This treaty helped save the world from nuclear war. Its legacy is crumbling
In times of upheaval, it is tempting to draw comparisons with the past. We search for patterns, wondering if things will repeat. As Israel and the United States waged war against Iran, many were reminded of other historical calamities: the outbreak of world wars, or more regionally, the destruction of Iraqi statehood in the early 2000s. Experience may be instructive, but it rarely repeats in quite the same way. This extraordinary campaign has shown that once again. Yet if we look at the deeper logic of state behavior, there is often more consistency. Even so, paradigms do shift; and the future can be predicted, in part, if we apply knowledge and imagination. Fifty years ago this month, in July 1975, leaders of 35 European states, the United States, and Canada gathered in Helsinki to sign the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). That landmark document crowned years of negotiation over how to manage coexistence between ideological systems whose rivalries had shaped the entire postwar world. The act formalized the status quo after World War II, including state borders and spheres of influence, especially between the two Germanies, Poland, and the Soviet Union. It confirmed the division of Europe, and the rules by which that division would be managed. Half a century is a long time. Counting back fifty years from Helsinki takes us to 1925, a brief interwar calm. Back then, the great powers believed the age of world wars was behind them, even as conflict potential was building on social, economic, ideological, military, and technological fronts. The Second World War was an unimaginable catastrophe, and the victors were determined to stop anything like it happening again. From that came a new international system. Despite the chronic Cold War confrontation that sometimes turned acute, mutual constraints and a stable balance of power preserved Europe's security. The CSCE then cemented this relative stability. The past fifty years have brought equally profound shifts in the international order, yet they are often perceived differently. In 1975, hardly anyone referred to 1925 as a framework; the eras were understood to be totally distinct. Today, in contrast, the Helsinki Accords are still cited as a supposed foundation of European security, and their principles treated as universal. There is no arguing with the ideals the Helsinki Final Act set out: respect for sovereignty, commitment to avoid the use of force, upholding borders, and promoting cooperation for mutual development. At that time, these promises were credible because they were backed by a durable balance of power – a balance guaranteed by Cold War competition. But the Cold War ended long ago, and with it the system of checks and balances that gave those promises substance. For the United States and its allies, the 1975 Helsinki framework (and the even earlier settlements at Yalta and Potsdam) were always seen as reluctant compromises with totalitarian adversaries. When the socialist bloc collapsed and the Soviet Union dissolved a decade and a half later, Western leaders felt confirmed in their historical righteousness. They believed they had a mandate to enforce the Helsinki principles as they interpreted them – this time on their own terms, with no rival power to check them. The disappearance of previous guarantees was not frightening to the West but encouraging. Today, on this anniversary, we must ask how relevant those ideals still are. The liberal world order is unraveling, and even the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), which inherited the CSCE's mission, is struggling to justify its existence. In the 1970s, world war was the fixed point of reference. Negotiations did not create a balance; they preserved it. The limits of what was acceptable had been established decades earlier, and the CSCE merely updated them. Had the Cold War ended with a clear and recognized victor, a new framework might have emerged, with widespread legitimacy. But because the outcome was never fully formalized, strategic uncertainty took its place. Everyone assumed the West had won, but no treaty codified it. That opened the door for every power to try to revise the settlement whenever the balance of power shifted. And when the stronger party – the United States – began ignoring its own declared rules to chase short-term advantage, the system began to unravel even faster. The OSCE still claims to rest on the order born in 1945 and affirmed in 1975, but that order no longer exists. Around the globe, countries are revisiting the results of World War II, challenging old hierarchies in different ways. That alone undermines Europe's postwar stability. Meanwhile, the West has lost its once-undisputed ability to impose its preferences on others. The United States is struggling to redefine its place in the world, with no clear outcome yet. Europe has lost its status as the world's political steward. Eurasia is becoming a more integrated space, though still unfinished. The Middle East is undergoing profound change, while Asia – from its eastern to southern edges – is a field of intense competition, even as it drives global growth. At moments like this, everything seems to move at once, including borders – both physical and moral. All the reference points are shifting simultaneously. So, is the Helsinki legacy completely irrelevant? Not entirely. Its core mission was to stabilize a known confrontation, to give it structure and predictability. Today's world does not have that kind of stable confrontation, and is unlikely to develop one soon, because events are too chaotic and too multidirectional. There is no solid balance of power to anchor things. Trying to copy Helsinki logic in Asia, for example, would only backfire. There, globalization has created massive interdependence – even between rivals. Forcing a political-military architecture on top of that would worsen tensions rather than calm them, subordinating economic logic to rigid power blocs. The Old World was prone to this mistake; Asia would suffer for repeating it. Nor can we expect the OSCE to recover its conflict-management role in Europe, given the gap between its lofty ambitions and its actual means. However, there is still something to learn from Helsinki. Diplomacy then was guided by classical principles: weighing complex interests, acknowledging you cannot achieve everything, maintaining at least a minimum of trust, and respecting your counterpart even amid deep ideological opposition. These approaches seem obvious, but after decades of liberal moral posturing and talk of 'the right side of history,' they are almost revolutionary once more. Perhaps we must relearn those basic diplomatic virtues. Helsinki's experience – born of the worst of wars but committed to peace – reminds us that respect, realism, and a readiness to talk can matter far more than fantasies of ideological purity.
Russia Today
a day ago
- Russia Today
Israeli ministers call on Netanyahu to annex West Bank
A group of Israeli ministers from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party have called on him to annex the West Bank before the end of the month. A total of 15 cabinet ministers, as well as the parliamentary speaker, Amir Ohana, signed a letter arguing that the creation of a Palestinian state in the area would pose an 'existential threat' to Israel and its settlement policy. The move should be made before the end of the parliament's summer session on June 27, the letter released on Wednesday stated, adding that West Jerusalem should seize the moment following the weakening of Iran and its allies in the region in the recent conflicts with Israel. 'The October 7 massacre proved that the doctrine of settlement blocs and the establishment of a Palestinian state in the remaining territory is an existential danger to Israel. It's time for sovereignty,' the ministers wrote, referring to the 2023 attack by the Gaza-based Hamas militant organization, which led to the latest conflict between Israel and the Palestinian group. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, himself not a member of the Likud Party, praised the initiative and claimed that the Israeli Settlement Administration in the West Bank would be ready to follow a government order and establish West Jerusalem's control over the West Bank at any moment. 'On the day he [Netanyahu] gives the order, the Settlement Administration under my leadership is ready … to implement the application of sovereignty immediately,' said the minister, who also holds a position within the Defense Ministry on issues related to the West Bank. The authors of the petition also argued that it was the right moment for such a move because of the 'strategic partnership, backing and support of the US and President Donald Trump.' The development came ahead of Netanyahu's meeting with Trump scheduled for next week. They are expected to discuss a potential Gaza ceasefire and a hostage deal with Hamas. During his first presidential term, Trump moved the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognized Israeli sovereignty over the occupied Golan Heights, sparking waves of international condemnation in both cases. Before the letter's release, Justice Minister Yariv Levin made a similar call, drawing condemnation from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Riyadh called it a 'violation of legitimate international resolutions,' while Cairo urged the international community to intervene. Israel seized the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 War and has been actively building settlements there – something that is widely regarded as illegal by the international community. West Jerusalem moved closer to its annexation in 2020 but dropped the idea at the time in exchange for normalization of relations with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain.
