Mondoweiss – August 1, 2024
After 300 days of ‘Operation al-Aqsa Flood’:
Nasrallah declares ‘new phase’ of war, vows ‘inevitable’ response to Israeli attack on Beirut
In a strident speech on Wednesday evening, Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah said that the fighting with Israel has “entered a new phase” that goes “beyond supporting Gaza,” vowing an “inevitable” response to Israel’s Beirut bombing.
By Qassam Muaddi
Casualties
39,480 + killed* and at least 91,128 wounded in the Gaza Strip. 28,903 Palestinians have been fully identified, and around 10,000 more are estimated to be under the rubble.*
594+ Palestinians have been killed in the occupied West Bank including eastern Jerusalem. These include 138 children.**
Israel revised its estimated October 7 death toll down from 1,400 to 1,140.
690 Israeli soldiers have been recognized as killed, and 4096 as wounded by the Israeli army since October 7.***
* Gaza’s branch of the Palestinian Ministry of Health confirmed this figure in its daily report, published through its WhatsApp channel on July 31, 2024. Some rights groups estimate the death toll to be much higher when accounting for those presumed dead.
** The death toll in the West Bank and Jerusalem is not updated regularly. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health on July 30, this is the latest figure.
*** These figures are released by the Israeli military, showing the soldiers whose names “were allowed to be published.” The head of the Israeli army’s wounded association told Israel’s Channel 12 the number of wounded Israeli soldiers exceeds 20,000 including at least 8,000 permanently handicapped as of June 1. Israel’s Channel 7 reported that according to the Israeli war ministry’s rehabilitation service numbers, 8,663 new wounded joined the army’s handicap rehabilitation system since October 7, as of June 18.
Key Developments
Israel has killed 156 Palestinians and wounded 666 across Gaza since Monday, July 29, raising the death toll since October 7 to 39,480 and the number of wounded to 91,128, according to the Gaza Health Ministry.
Israel assassinates senior Hezbollah commander Fouad Shukr on Tuesday night in Beirut’s southern Dahiya district.
Israel assassinates head of Hamas political bureau Ismail Haniyeh on Wednesday morning in Tehran; Hanieh receives state funeral in Tehran on Thursday, to be buried in Qatar on same day.
In televised address on Thursday, Hezbollah Secretary General Hasan Nasrallah announces “new phase” in fighting with Israel after Beirut bombing and Shukr assassination.
Speaker of Iranian parliament says Israel made “strategic mistake” by killing Haniyeh; Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei and Iranian Revolutionary Guard pledge revenge.
Israel claims that Israeli strike on Mawasi last month successfully killed head of Hamas military wing Muhammad al-Deif.
Senior Hamas leader Khalil al-Hayyeh says assassination of Ismail Haniyeh provoked anger of all Muslim nations.
Blinken says Middle East heading toward more conflict; ceasefire in Gaza can bring calm between Lebanon and Israel.
Financial Times quotes unnamed Western diplomat saying several Western countries are pressuring Iran to avoid responding to Haniyeh assassination to prevent regional war; future of Middle East conflict depends more on Iran’s choices than Israel’s.
Israeli internal security service, Shin Bet, orders Israeli politicians, including Prime Minister, not to travel or move without authorization.
Israel reported to have informed Iran and Hezbollah of its readiness for a war.
Iran representative at UN Security Council accuses U.S. of participating in Haniyeh assassination, says Israel could not have done it without U.S. intelligence assistance.
Marking 300 days of war, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid says “all the government can offer is one war after the other.”
Israeli protesters block main highway in Tel Aviv demanding ceasefire and prisoners’ exchange deal.
Two U.S. airliners cancel flights to and from Lebanon.
Israel kills Al Jazeera reporter Ismail al-Ghoul and cameraman Rami al-Rifi in airstrike on Gaza City, raising number of Palestinian journalists killed by Israel since October 7 to 165.
Palestinians observe general strike in all West Bank cities on Wednesday in mourning over Haniyeh assassination, take part in several marches.
One Israeli wounded in stabbing and shooting attack in Hebron in southern West Bank, Wednesday. Israeli army says attacker arrested.
Ismail Haniyeh receives state funeral in Tehran, to be buried in Qatar
On Wednesday morning, Hamas announced that the head of its political bureau, Ismail Haniyeh, was assassinated in an Israeli strike on his place of residence in Tehran. Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei also accused Israel of the assassination, adding that it “will be severely punished.” The Iranian Revolutionary Guard also accused Israel of the attack in a statement, vowing that “the Zionist regime will face a harsh response from the resistance axis and especially Iran.”
Israel, for its part, did not officially claim responsibility for Haniyeh’s killing, although its heritage minister, Amichai Eliyahu, celebrated the assassination, commenting that “this is the correct way to cleanse the world,” while Netanyahu said that Israel had dealt a heavy blow “to the Houthis, Hezbollah, and Hamas” in a televised speech on Wednesday. The Israeli public broadcaster also said that the assassination occurred by means of a missile launched from outside of Iranian territory.
Haniyeh is the highest-ranking Hamas figure to be assassinated since the beginning of the current war. He was also heading the ceasefire negotiations on Hamas’s behalf in recent months.
On Thursday, Hanyeh’s body received an official and popular funeral in Tehran in the presence of the Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei. At the funeral, the speaker of the Iranian parliament Muhammad Bagher Ghalibaf said that Israel “has committed a strategic mistake,” and that Iran “has the right to respond in the right time and place.” Iran’s supreme leader had pledged on Wednesday a “harsh punishment” for Israel.
Haniyeh’s body arrived in Doha, Qatar, on Thursday afternoon, where he is scheduled to receive a second funeral and be laid to rest.
On Thursday, several media outlets reported that European countries and the U.S. are pressuring Iran not to respond or to limit its response to Haniyeh’s assassination to a symbolic reprisal.
Meanwhile, Iran’s representative at the UN Security Council accused the U.S. of taking part in the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, remarking that Israel could not have carried out the attack without U.S. intelligence assistance. For its part, the U.S. secretary of state, Antony Blinken, said that “this [attack] is not something we were aware of or involved in.”
On Thursday, Israeli media reported that the Israeli internal security service, the Shin Bet, ordered all Israeli officials, including the Prime Minister, not to travel without authorization.
Nasrallah pledges ‘real response’ to Beirut attack, will not be ‘symbolic’
The Secretary General of Hezbollah, Hasan Nasrallah, pledged on Thursday “a real, not a symbolic” response to the Israeli attack on Beirut’s southern Dahiya neighborhood on Tuesday, which resulted in the killing of senior Hezbollah commander Fouad Shukr.
Nasrallah spoke at the funeral of Shukr in Beirut, where he commented on the reported pressures of Western countries on Hezbollah to limit its response to a “symbolic” reprisal in order to avoid a major war. Nasrallah declared that “what is happening has now moved beyond supporting the [Gaza] front, but is now a major, open battle whose fields are Gaza, southern Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq and Iran.” He added that “the pressure to stop our support of the fronts will not work,” asserting that “the enemy does not know what red lines it has crossed: we have entered a new phase.”
Nasrallah asserted that Israel had crossed three red lines: the targeting of a civilian building, which caused civilian casualties, the attack on the southern suburb of Lebanon’s capital, and the killing of a senior Hezbollah commander.
“The surrender of the resistance’s support of the fronts is not on the table, since the daily killing of children in Gaza has not stopped,” Nasrallah said in the speech. “Whoever is interested in preventing the region from entering open war should know that the only solution is the end of the aggression on Gaza.”
Following Nasrallah’s speech, Netanyahu said that Israel would exact a heavy price against “whoever attacks us.” Israeli media reported that the Israeli government ordered the emptying of several military bases in the north and that the Israeli army had canceled all weekend vacations for its staff.
Hezbollah and Israel have been engaged in a series of cross-border attacks since October 8 of last year. Nasrallah has repeatedly affirmed that the purpose of the Lebanese front was to support Gaza up until the attack on Beirut.
No leadership crisis in Hamas after the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh
By Abdus Sattar Ghazali
Palestinian expert Yousef Alhelou says that there will be no leadership crisis in Hamas after the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh.
Yousef Alhelou is a Palestinian freelance journalist and documentary filmmaker based in Gaza-Palestine. He has more than one million followers on Instagram.
Responding to TRT journalist Berra Ince, Alhelou pointed out that Israel has assassinated dozens of Hamas leaders in the past and other resistance leaders from the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), DPFLP (Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine), and many other people.
About future Hamas leadership, Alhelou said it was still not clear who is going to take the lead after Haniyeh. Most likely it might be Khaled Meshaal, who lives outside Palestine. But we have to wait and see.
On reports that Yahya Ibrahim Hassan Sinwar, better known as Yahya Sinwar, or Mohammed Deif may succeed Haniyeh, Alhelou said that both of them are military commanders who usually do not take the lead and be in the political leadership.
Besides Khalid Meshaal, Khalil al Hayyah’s name is mentioned for Haniyeh’s succession.
Assassinating figures will not lead to the eradication and elimination of any Palestinian resistance, Alhelou said adding:
“Palestinian resistance will continue to exist as long as Israel occupies Palestinian land and as long as Israel kills Palestinians on a daily basis, not only in Gaza, but across the occupied West Bank, including occupied East Jerusalem.”
About Haniyeh's political legacy, Alhelou said Haniyeh will always be remembered as an important figure, a respected figure in the Palestinian society since he was accepted by even his opponents, Fatah, a party led by (Mahmoud) Abbas in the (occupied) West Bank.
Haniyeh was the first prime minister who led the government when Hamas came to power in 2006.
And he has many famous speeches, such as he said that we will never recognize Israel because it doesn't exist, therefore Jerusalem, Al Quds, will always be the eternal capital of the future Palestinian state.
He was known by his pragmatic, diplomatic, smiley face, and it's really a huge loss to the Palestinians inside the occupied territories and outside Palestine in the diaspora.
We have to wait and see who is going to be the deputy or the new leader of Hamas, and we will have to wait and see if Hamas and other resistance factions and Iran and Hezbollah, Yemen, Iraq, if they are going to avenge his death, Alhelou concluded.
The real reason Israel is assassinating Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, and why it won’t stop the resistance
Israel’s assassination of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders doesn’t aim to weaken the resistance. Its real motive is to restore the image of military and intelligence superiority in the eyes of the Israeli public.
BY ABDALJAWAD OMAR
On the night of July 30, Israel escalated its military operations, targeting its adversaries across multiple fronts, including Lebanon, Iran, and Palestine. The Israeli government claimed a significant success with the assassination of a Hezbollah commander in the densely populated neighborhood of southern Beirut. Simultaneously, Israel launched a bold strike in the heart of Tehran, killing Ismail Haniyeh, the current politburo chief of Hamas.
After ten months of slowly but steadily losing the escalation dominance it had maintained for decades, Israel is now attempting to reclaim the initiative and reestablish the upper hand by targeting both Beirut and Tehran in under 24 hours.
Israel’s actions are not merely about projecting strength; they are also designed to increase pressure on the axis of resistance. The strategic objective here is to fracture the unity of this coalition by leveraging its military capabilities to flirt with the prospect of an all-out war — an outcome that neither Israel nor Hezbollah, and by extension Iran, truly desire. This calculated brinkmanship aims to unsettle the adversaries, forcing them to reconsider their unified stance and possibly leading to concessions in Israel’s favor.
Israel is banking on the notion that fear of further escalation will push Hezbollah and Iran to exert pressure on Hamas to meet some of Israel’s demands during ceasefire negotiations. Additionally, Israel anticipates that any real escalation — particularly one provoked by its targeted actions — would compel the United States and its allies to offer military and diplomatic support. While Washington may not actively seek a major conflict, Israel is confident that the U.S. will not hesitate to come to its aid if the situation escalates. In other words, Israel is pursuing a policy of entanglement and in doing so is taking calculated risks, knowing that if things go awry, the American military will rush to its defense in another war in the Middle East.
For some time now, Israel has been gauging the reactions of its adversaries, particularly noting the subdued Palestinian response to its proclamations that it had successfully assassinated Hamas’s military commander in Gaza, Muhammad al-Deif. This observation has led Israeli strategic planners to conclude that while a diplomatic deal remains a priority, such targeted assassinations are unlikely to derail these efforts.
Additionally, Israel’s calculations suggest that although Hezbollah and Iran might view incursions into Beirut or Tehran as significant escalations requiring a response, both actors are likely to avoid triggering an all-out conflict that could lead to open warfare. This belief underscores Israel’s confidence in its ability to carry out targeted actions without provoking a broader regional conflict.
These maneuvers would likely have taken place regardless of the incident in Majdal Shams. The current operations and series of escalations are occurring at a moment when Israel stands to benefit strategically, even if it ultimately signs an agreement. By accumulating tactical successes, Israel aims to reassert its escalation dominance in its ongoing conflicts with adversaries. This approach reflects a calculated effort to strengthen its negotiating position while ensuring it maintains a decisive upper hand in any potential confrontation. It also seeks to showcase its resilience and will to fight even though the war has dragged on for months on end, with signs of fractures within Israeli society and the loss of trust in the military. This has most recently culminated in mutinous and insurrectionary riots outside the notorious prison of Sde Teiman protesting the detainment of nine Israeli soldiers accused of gang-raping a Palestinian prisoner.
Israel’s history and policy of assassinating Palestinian leaders
The notion of assassination is deeply embedded in the history of the Arab region, with the term itself originating from the region. During the 11th to 13th centuries, amid the turmoil of the Crusades, the Nizari Ismailis — commonly known as the “Hashashin” — employed assassination as a strategic tool to eliminate leaders who opposed their cause. Yet, the significance of assassination in the region extends far beyond mere etymology. This region, long subjected to colonial encroachment and artificially induced disunity, has become a theater where the conventional rules of war can be suspended. In this context, political actors who do not align with Western hegemonic interests are often rendered exceptions, making their leaders legitimate targets in ways that violate rules and norms upheld elsewhere.
Israel has refined the practice of targeted assassinations, often coupled with the arrest of key leaders, to eliminate influential political and military figures. This strategy is not merely about neutralizing immediate threats; it is also about shaping the composition and character of the resistance it faces in the region.
In the past century, Israel has refined the practice of targeted assassinations, often coupled with the arrest of key leaders, to eliminate influential political and military figures. This strategy is not merely about neutralizing immediate threats; it is also about shaping the composition and character of the resistance it faces in the region. Through these lethal interventions, Israel seeks to cultivate a leadership class within Palestine and the broader Arab world that aligns more closely U.S. and Israeli interests, thereby manipulating the dynamics of resistance against its policies of land appropriation, ethnic cleansing, and colonization.
These tactics have proven effective in removing key Palestinian leaders at critical junctures of the struggle. For instance, during the pre-Oslo years, the assassinations of pivotal figures such as Yasser Arafat’s second and third in command — Abu Iyad (Salah Khalaf) and Abu Jihad (Khalil al-Wazir) — cleared the way for the emergence of a more pliant leadership, which now has been ultimately epitomized by Mahmoud Abbas.
During the Second Intifada, Israel arrested popualr Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti and PFLP General Secretary Ahmad Saadat. It also possibly poisoned Yasser Arafat, and it assassinated the PFLP’s military commander, Abu Ali Mustafa, along with key figures within Hamas such as Abdul Aziz Rantisi and Hamas’s founder, Ahmad Yassin, ensuring that no real opposition to the entrenchment of Palestine’s own comprador class could gain dominance in Palestinian politics. Through such operations, Israel sought to remold the consciousness of the very leadership class that opposed it. After all, if Palestinians, Arabs, or their leaders give up on the cause, then there would be no cause to speak of. New leaders would not only fear for their lives but would also be more amenable to Israeli goals and objectives.
This policy has served Israel well in the past but has also created unintended consequences.
This policy has served Israel well in the past but has also created unintended consequences. Today, Palestinian disunity is not within a specific coalition or political group; it is disunity marked by a pragmatic comprador class ruling the West Bank, while more homogenous resistance groups operate from places like Gaza. While the PLO once incorporated various currents, like the stance of Mahmoud Abbas, into its organizational fabric, the current disposition of resistance groups contains fewer disagreements about its strategies vis-à-vis Israel. What differences do exist among the resistance are largely tactical or tied to choices of alliance systems. In other words, assassinating Ismail Haniyeh does not automatically lead to more compliant leadership emerging in his place, because the movement from which Haniyeh descends remains united around the framework of resistance.
Moreover, Israel’s rejectionism and refusal to accommodate figures like Mahmoud Abbas, or to grant Palestinians even a bantustan state, have shaped Palestinian consciousness in a way that reinforces the belief that only resistance can bring about strategic shifts. This attitude has been bolstered by the fact that negotiations are futile with an Israeli society that is both arrogant and supremacist, epitomized recently by the riots in the Sde Teiman protests for the right to rape Palestinian prisoners.
The declining efficacy of Israeli assassinations
Israel’s fear of peace, coupled with its insistence on maintaining dominance through force and the ironic presence of figures like Mahmoud Abbas, who, by enabling Israel’s colonization in the West Bank without resistance, have led Palestinians and Palestinian resistance groups to dismiss any serious approach towards negotiated solutions. These dynamics have deepened the conviction that meaningful change cannot be achieved through dialogue with a state that continues to prioritize force and hegemony over genuine peace efforts.
Moreover, Palestinians have both reframed their resistance and institutionalized its organizational structures. The character of these organizations has evolved, becoming less dependent on a cult of personality or deep emotional ties with individual leaders, and more focused on organizational roles and operational efficacy. Gone are the days when resistance groups would collapse into disarray following the loss of a key figure.
Today, Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements have adapted to the reality that the assassination of a prominent leader may cause a tactical setback, but it does not lead to the disintegration of their operations. In fact, in many instances, these groups have demonstrated resilience, using such incidents as a catalyst for the further consolidation and strengthening of their organizational frameworks. This shift reflects a maturing of the resistance movements, where the focus is on sustainability and continuity rather than on the influence of individual leaders or specific clientelist networks bent on building influence within a specific political formation.
So, beyond the immediate tactical impact, what do these assassinations achieve? In some cases, they can backfire, as seen with the assassination of Hezbollah leader Abbas Musawi, which paved the way for the rise of Hasan Nasrallah. In other instances, these actions may even facilitate the emergence of more innovative and adaptable commanders who can take on key positions. By removing one leader, Israel may inadvertently create space for another often more formidable leader to emerge. One only needs to look at the development of both Hamas and Hezbollah in the wake of various assassinations at various historical stages to realize that these operations lost much of their power.
These assassinations reinforce the bond between political-military organizations and the broader society within which they are enmeshed. . . Instead of weakening their opponents, such tactics can unintentionally solidify unity and resolve.
These assassinations reinforce the bond between political-military organizations and the broader society within which they are enmeshed, making it much harder for any real schism to develop. Instead of weakening their opponents, such tactics can unintentionally solidify unity and resolve, bridging the gap between militant factions and the larger population. The killing of Hamas leaders such as Ismail Haniyeh, who left Gaza, loosens internal dissent.
The real reason for Israel’s current policy of assassinations serves more as a mechanism to galvanize its own society rather than genuinely altering the political or military stance of its adversaries. The efficacy of such tactics in destabilizing Israel’s enemies has severely diminished, revealing a shift in the purpose of these operations. Instead of crippling opposition forces, these targeted killings now function primarily as a tool for internal cohesion, rallying Israeli national sentiment, and showing Israel’s intelligence and operational capabilities. It also permits Israel to claim that it gained the upper hand in the moves to dominate the escalation ladder with its adversaries.
The real reason for Israel’s current policy of assassinations serves more as a mechanism to galvanize its own society rather than genuinely altering the political or military stance of its adversaries.
Ultimately, these acts are displays of tactical prowess designed to enshrine the supremacy of Israeli power, largely aimed at impressing Israelis themselves at a time when Israelis feel that their army and intelligence apparatus failed them. When Israel talks about a “loss of deterrence,” it is not so much concerned with how its enemies perceive it but rather with how it perceives itself. The rhetoric of deterrence is less about external threats and more about maintaining an internal narrative of strength and invincibility, ensuring that the image of Israeli power remains intact in the collective psyche of its own society.
Nasrallah ushers in a new phase, asserts retaliation is inevitable
Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah tells Israelis and their backers that they must await Hezbollah's inevitable response to the assassination of Sayyed Fouad Shokor.
The Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah confirmed on Thursday that the Israeli attack on Hareit Hreik in the southern suburbs of Beirut was an aggression targeting civilian buildings and killing civilians, not just an assassination operation.
The aggression resulted in the martyrdom of five civilians, three women, and two children, in addition to Iranian military advisor Milad Bidi.
In a speech delivered at a large funeral ceremony held for Hezbollah's assassinated top military leader Sayyed Fouad Shokor, Sayyed Nasrallah said that the Israeli regime tried to label its aggression as a "response" to the incident in Majdal Shams.
He reiterated that the Resistance has rejected this accusation and denied responsibility after a thorough investigation, adding that "we have the courage to take responsibility if it was our attack, even if it was a mistake, and we have precedents in this matter."
In this context, Sayyed Nasrallah also emphasized that what the Israeli occupation committed "is not a reaction to what happened in Majdal Shams, but rather a claim, deception, and part of the war and battle," pointing out that the occupation "appointed itself as prosecutor, judge, and executioner."
Hezbollah's chief pointed out that "Israel cannot accept the hypothesis that the incident in Majdal Shams was due to an Israeli interceptor missile" despite the massive evidence suggesting it, which was even put forward by numerous military experts.
He affirmed that "the aim of accusing the Resistance is to incite sectarian strife between the [Druze] people of the occupied Golan and [Hezbollah] and behind it the Shiite sect, in order to undermine the most significant achievements of the al-Aqsa Flood" of unity and solidarity among Arabs and people of the region.
However, Sayyed Nasrallah confirmed that this strife was quelled and disabled "thanks to the awareness and firm positions of the leaders of the Druze community," extending his gratitude to the political and spiritual leaders of the Druze for their stance.
Elsewhere in his address, the leader of Hezbollah extended condolences to the Palestinian Resistance movement Hamas and the al-Qassam Brigades on the martyrdom of the head of the political bureau of the movement, Ismail Haniyeh, and his companion, Wasim Abu Shabaan, in the Iranian capital, Tehran, as a result of an Israeli attack.
The assassination of Haniyeh matter of Honor to Iran
Sayyed Nasrallah emphasized that the Islamic Republic considers the killing of martyr Haniyeh as more significant than the aggression on its consulate in Syria.
He said that in addition to it being an infringement on Iran's national security and sovereignty, "the most important aspect is that Iran considers it to be an attack on its honor," pointing out the statement of Iran's leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei, who considered that the Israeli regime assassinated a "guest of the Islamic Republic".
"Do they imagine they can kill the leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and Iran will remain silent?," Sayyed Nasrallah questioned, emphasizing that "Israel" has crossed major red lines.
Sayyed Nasrallah continued: "For Israelis celebrating that they have assassinated Resistance prominent leaders in Beirut and Tehran and earlier attack Hodeidah... you will cry a lot because you do not realize which red lines you have crossed and [what] you have committed."
The Secretary-General underscored that the Islamic Resistance in Lebanon entered the battle in support of Gaza "with faith in its morality, legitimacy, and importance," asserting that the Resistance "was not and will not be surprised by any price we might pay" while in this fight.
He added, "We are paying the price for supporting Gaza, and this is not the first [price we had to pay]; hundreds of our martyrs have fallen, including leaders, and we accept the price of the martyrdom of Sayyed Mohsen and those with him."
A new phase of operations
Announcing a new phase of the confrontation, Sayyed Nasrallah said: "We are facing a major battle where matters have surpassed the issue of support fronts," announcing, "We are in an open battle on all fronts, and it has entered a new phase." He emphasized that the escalation of the new phase "depends on the reactions of the [Israeli] occupation."
Reaffirming the Resistance Axis' position announced on the day of the Israeli war on Gaza, Sayyed Nasrallah said that those who want to spare the region a larger and worse escalation, "must compel Israel to stop its aggression on the Gaza Strip," and that "there will be no solution except by stopping the aggression."
Following the Israeli aggression on Beirut, Hezbollah did not carry out any operations.
Sayyed Nasrallah announced that the Lebanese support front would return actively to what it was by Friday morning, explaining that attacks were paused until concluding the funeral processions of the martyred Hezbollah leader and Lebanese civilians.
However, he emphasized that the operations have "nothing to do with the response to the [assasination] of martyr Shokor".
Hezbollah's chief revealed that the group has been contacted by countries and parties around the world to either talk it out of responding or threaten against it, adding that Hezbollah made it clear that this is not up for debate.
He declared that the Israeli regime and its backers "must await our inevitable response" and that "there is no debate or argument about this."
"The decision is now in the hands of the frontline, its circumstances, and the opportunities it offers. We are looking for a solid and well-studied response, not a formal one."
Resistance grows with its martyrs
Speaking about martyred leader Sayyed Shokor, Hezbollah's chief said that the assassinated commander "oversaw the development of capabilities considered today among the most important within the Resistance's arsenal."
Sayyed Nasrallah confirmed, as evident by history, "the assassination of leaders does not affect the Resistance," noting that "experience shows that the Resistance grows and strengthens."
He assured the supporters of the Resistance that "we quickly fill any void created by the martyrdom of one of our leaders," pointing out that Hezbollah possesses "an excellent generation of leaders."
The assassination of leaders "will increase our determination, resolve, and will, and make us hold firmly to the rightfulness of our choice."
Press in peril: This is how Israel killed 165 Gaza journalists in 300 days
Since October 7, Israel has relentlessly targeted Palestinian media workers in the besieged enclave where it is engaged in a genocidal war on unarmed civilians.
On July 31, Al Jazeera reporter Ismail al Ghoul and cameraman Rami al Rifi were killed in an Israeli missile strike on their car in Gaza City. They were on their way back from the al Shati refugee camp, where the slain Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh grew up.
One of their colleagues posted a video of himself grieving beside al-Ghoul’s body. “This is Ismail. No head. This is the situation of journalists in Gaza,” he screams into the camera.
Al Jazeera has called the killing of its journalists a ﾓcold-blooded assassination,ﾔﾠstressing that both men were wearing press vests and that the vehicle they were travelling in had clear markers identifying them as journalists.
Al Ghoul and al Rifi are the latest casualties in the journalist fraternity since October 7, when Israel launched its genocidal war on Gaza that has left nearly 40,000 people dead in just 300 days.
The number of journalists and media workers killed since October 7 now stands at 165, according to the Government Media Office in Gaza.
“More journalists have been killed in the first 10 weeks of the Israel-Gaza war than have ever been killed in a single country over an entire year,” the nonprofit Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said in December.
Though its tally of killed journalists is much lower at 113, the organisation says it is also “investigating almost 350 additional cases of potential killings, arrests and injuries”.
‘Deadliest period’
The CPJ has described the war as the “deadliest period for journalists”. And comparative numbers bear this fact: between 1967 and 2022, the number of journalists killed in Palestine was 86, according to the Palestinian Journalism Syndicate.
The relentless targeting of members of the media community flies in the face of Israel’s claim that its security forces don’t target journalists, a falsehood it had reiterated after soldiers shot dead Palestinian journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, who was wearing her distinct press jacket at that time.
Back then, a formal complaint was filed in the International Criminal Court by the International Federation of Journalists, the Palestinian Journalists' Syndicate and the International Centre for Justice for Palestinians on the repeated targeting of journalists in Palestine.
In January this year, the United Nations too had expressed concern over the high number of journalists casualties in targeted Israeli strikes.
More recently, Reporters with Borders filed two complaints with the ICC for alleged Israeli war crimes against Palestinian journalists in Gaza.
On July 29, journalists in Gaza held a press conference to protest the unrelenting targeting of Palestinian journalists and their families by Israel.
“We call on the International Federation of Journalists, the Federation of Arab Journalists, and all other journalistic institutions and unions to stand within the limits of their professional and ethical responsibilities [in Gaza],” they pleaded.
They removed their press jackets in a symbolic gesture to show their meaninglessness in the current context of the genocidal war against their people, where they have as little protection as any other Palestinian.
Two investigative reports also expose Israel’s deliberate killing of Palestinian journalists, described as an attempt by the Zionist state to muzzle the flow of information from the besieged enclave, which has turned into a dystopian wasteland littered with mass grave
The first investigationﾠby the United Nations found that Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah was killed in south Lebanon when an Israeli tank fired at a group of “clearly identifiable journalists” wearing press jackets.
The second was a Washington Post investigation that reviewed drone footage and conducted eyewitness interviews from the scene of a missile strike on four Palestinian journalists near Khan Younis.
The Israeli military had claimed to have “identified and struck a terrorist who operated an aircraft that posed a threat to IDF troops,” referring to Thuraya’s drone, and that the men belonged to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
But the Post investigation found “no indications that either man was operating as anything other than a journalist that day. Both passed through Israeli checkpoints on their way to the south early in the war; Dahdouh had recently been approved to leave Gaza, a rare privilege unlikely to have been granted to a known militant,” they reported.
|
Published since July 2008 |
Your donation
is tax deductable.
The Journal of America Team:
Editor in chief:
Abdus Sattar Ghazali
Senior Editor:
Prof. Arthur Scott
Special Correspondent
Maryam Turab
