Yahoo Web Search

  1. Palestinian Authority vs Hamas: What is the difference ...

    www.jpost.com › Israel-News › Palestinian-Authority

    Dec 30, 2019 · The continued split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Ahmed warned, is designed to consolidate de facto Hamas rule in Gaza and prevent the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

  2. May 13, 2021 · Sheik Ahmed Yassin, one of Hamas’ many co-founders, said the organisation was founded as a means to liberate Palestine from Israeli occupation, and to establish a Palestinian state based on ...

  3. Hamas is opposed to two-state solution accepted by the Palestinian Authority and the United Nations. The peace scheme provides for existence of both Israel and Palestine. Hamas does not recognise ...

  4. Palestinian National Authority - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Palestinian_National_Authority

    The Palestinian Authority was created by the Gaza–Jericho Agreement, pursuant to the 1993 Oslo Accords.The Gaza–Jericho Agreement was signed on 4 May 1994 and included Israeli withdrawal from the Jericho area and partially from the Gaza Strip, and detailed the creation of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Civil Police Force.

  5. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)

    www.globalsecurity.org › military › world

    Jun 24, 2021 · Hamas leaders claimed that Israel's international reputation was badly damaged during the 2008 Op Cast Lead Gaza conflict for the cost of "only 1,300 Palestinian lives."

  6. Battle of Gaza (2007) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Battle_of_Gaza_(2007)

    Battle of Gaza (2007) The Battle of Gaza, also referred to as Hamas' takeover of Gaza, was a military conflict between Fatah and Hamas, that took place in the Gaza Strip between June 10 and 15, 2007. It was a prominent event in the Fatah–Hamas conflict, centered on the struggle for power, after Fatah lost the parliamentary elections of 2006.

  7. Hamas and Fatah: How are the two groups different? | Fatah ...

    www.aljazeera.com › features › 2017/10/12

    Oct 12, 2017 · Hamas and Fatah are the two most dominant parties in the Palestinian political scene. On Thursday, the two movements announced they had reached a deal to end a decade-long rift that brought them ...

  8. Gaza Strip - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Gaza_Strip

    Following the victory of Hamas in the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, Hamas and Fatah formed the Palestinian authority national unity government headed by Ismail Haniya. Shortly after, Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip in the course of the Battle of Gaza , [88] seizing government institutions and replacing Fatah and other government ...

  9. Key Principles of a Demilitarized Palestinian State

    jcpa.org › demilitarized_palestinian_state
    • Israel Has Sought Palestinian Demilitarization Since Oslo
    • Israel’s Strategic Vulnerability
    • Security Challenges Ahead
    • Lessons Learned from Failed Agreements with The PA
    • Confronting Terrorist and Military Threats
    • Understandings and Disagreements in Israeli-Palestinian Negotiations to Date
    • The Principles of Israel’s Position on Demilitarization
    • The Military Dimension
    • The Terrorism Dimension
    • The Implementation of Demilitarization

    The State of Israel’s requirement that a prospective Palestinian state be demilitarized has been in effect since the 1993 Declaration of Principles (DOP), which served as the basis for the Oslo process and the establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA). However, the term “demilitarization,” as it is commonly understood (i.e., a limitation on war materials), is too narrowly defined and does not sufficiently cover the full range of Israel’s security needs. The broader concept includes preventing the development of symmetrical and asymmetrical military threats against Israel – including conventional warfare, terrorism and guerilla warfare – from and via the territory of the PA and a perspective Palestinian state. Demilitarization, then, is a means to safeguarding Israel’s security, not an end in itself. Since 1936 – even before the founding of the state – and until the present time, Israel has pursued the path of territorial compromise. It has done so, despite great inherent secur...

    Israel’s long-time insistence on the demilitarization of any independent Palestinian entity stems from strategic security threats that could easily arise both within a future Palestinian state and from a number of hostile regional actors. Since its founding in 1948, Israel has suffered from several regional asymmetries in relation to its neighbors that restrict its capacity for self-defense. Israel’s population of 8 million lives in an area of less than 10,000 square miles including the disputed West Bank, while surrounded by Arab countries with a population of three hundred million and territories 650 times larger than Israel. Israel’s main objective over the years has been to defend itself against hostile forces, while its Arab and Palestinian neighbors have maintained aggressive and hostile intentions, notwithstanding historic peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. Israel also lacks territorial contiguity with “friendly” neighboring states that could provide transportation arter...

    Israel is likely to face two main scenarios in the wake of the establishment of a Palestinian state, and in light of prevailing trends in the Middle East: In the first scenario, the Palestinian state-in-formation would be a failed one, that serves as a convenient base for the development of terrorist infrastructures, as transpired in Gaza following Israel’s 2005 unilateral withdrawal.4 Such a situation would pose an ongoing challenge for Israel, which would likely face repeated assaults by terror squads attempting to penetrate its border, or by high-trajectory rockets launched into its heartland, as occurred following Israel’s withdrawal from the territory. Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli towns and cities increased by more than 500 percent between 2005 and 2006.5In all likelihood, then, a withdrawal from the West Bank would lead to repeated armed confrontations, making it extremely difficult for Israelis to go about their daily lives, and severely hindering the implementation of pea...

    Israel’s ability to anticipate future threats is largely rooted in lessons learned from past experience. Indeed, since 1993, when the Israeli government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) signed the Oslo Declaration of Principles that launched the peace process, much has been learned from subsequent events on the ground. These can be summarized as follows: Only Israel’s freedom of military operation in the West Bank has thus far prevented terrorists there from manufacturing rockets and launching them at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Israel’s freedom of military operation in the West Bank, which enables the IDF to reach every place where prohibited arms are manufactured or hidden, has thus far prevented terrorists there from being able to manufacture rockets and launch them at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. It has also enabled the IDF to intercept suicide bombers before they are able to carry out their deadly missions.

    A threat exists when hostile intentions join with aggressive capabilities. Israel has learned from many years of confronting military campaigns and terrorism that it is virtually impossible to alter hostile intentions. In fact, a major problem Israel faces in dealing with a non-state actor such as the Palestinian Authority is that, unlike with state actors such as Egypt or Jordan, classic principles of deterrence and punishment are far less effective as there is no unified government that asserts control over people, weapons, and terrorist groups. This is illustrated by the split between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza. Therefore, aggressive capabilities must be neutralized. This is why Israel has maintained its uncompromising policy of disarming the terrorist infrastructures within and along its borders. Its relative success in dismantling terror infrastructure relies on high-quality, precise military intelligence and full freedom of operation, which includes the ability t...

    Over the years, understandings have been reached regarding the purpose of the reformed Palestinian security forces as envisioned by PA leader Mahmoud Abbas, who has repeatedly insisted on “one authority, one law, and one weapon.”12These forces are tasked with internal policing responsibilities, such as: establishing law and order; preventing terrorism and violence; dismantling terror infrastructures; disarming armed groups; and securing borders to prevent the smuggling of weapons and infiltration of terrorists. However, despite (or perhaps because of) the security challenge Palestinian forces have posed to Israel in the past – and could easily pose in the future – the heads of the PLO and the PA have so far refused to agree to a definition of demilitarization that would characterize a Palestinian state. In fact, the PA leadership in Ramallah has sought a definition that would defeat the whole principle of demilitarization.13In discussions on the matter, PA representatives have said...

    Israel views the term “demilitarization” as encompassing a wider definition than is normally accepted or spelled out in international law, since the common term does not take into account the changing nature of military conflicts and threats. According to Israel’s definition, demilitarization is a means to an end: that no security threat – whether symmetrical, asymmetrical, military, terrorist or one that poses any other disruption to daily life in Israel – develop or come to fruition either within or by way of Palestinian territory.15But the context of demilitarization here is also unique, as it does not involve two countries with regular armies, but rather a Palestinian state-in-the-making with a history of constant terrorism against Israel.16 Therefore, Israel must insist on the prohibition of strategic balance-breaking weaponry under Palestinian control, and must demand broad limitations on the security capabilities of the prospective Palestinian state, including the formation o...

    For Israel, demilitarization means that no Palestinian army or military capabilities which could constitute a threat will be established. The following precautions are required to ensure demilitarization: 1. The maintaining of Palestinian police and internal security frameworks – such as the U.S.-sponsored “Dayton forces”18– not military ones or those with obvious military characteristics. 2. Only permitting Palestinian possession of weapons whose purpose is for internal security and policing alone. 3. An absence of military alliances or cooperation between Palestinian security forces and foreign armies. This includes no foreign military or other armed group in the territory of the Palestinian state. 4. A commitment that no military forces of the Palestinian state will be kept outside of the state, as such forces have the potential to operate against Israel during emergencies and other unforeseen situations. 5. An absence of military infrastructures – such as defense industries – an...

    No threats from or via the Palestinian state can be allowed to develop or materialize, and it is the duty of the Palestinian state to prevent terrorist activities, as well as incitement and indoctrination of its society to terrorism, and the creation of terrorist infrastructures inside its borders. The following security requirements would guarantee the absence of these types of threats: 1. Engagement on the part of the Palestinian police and other security forces in “ground-up” (rather than “top-down”) activity. This includes safeguarding law and order, preventing terrorism, dismantling terrorist infrastructures and armed militias, and preventing arms smuggling and terrorist infiltration.19 2. Prevention of armed or ideological interference in the proper workings of the Palestinian state by radical extremists and opponents of peace, particularly with regard to the abetting of extremists, terrorist organizations, and armed groups, as well as attempts to disrupt the Palestinian gover...

    Achieving the strategic objective of preventing the development of threats to Israel from a Palestinian state will require a multi-stage process: The First Stage– Demilitarization and security arrangements which limit the ability of the Palestinian state to form an army and limit the weapons of the Palestinian security forces. In the initial stage, demilitarization takes on a broader definition, to include the prevention of terrorism and a ban on terrorist infrastructures in the Palestinian state. These security arrangements must not hamper Israel’s ability to react in self-defense to potential threats posed by and emanating from the Palestinian state. The Second Stage– Implementation arrangements that rely on the involvement of international monitors, preferably led by the U.S., who will oversee and ensure that all clauses of the security agreements are met. Simultaneously, assistance will be provided to the Palestinian security forces in executing tasks related to internal securit...

  10. What is Hamas trying to achieve by fighting Israel ...

    www.jpost.com › arab-israeli-conflict › what-is

    May 11, 2021 · Hamas is now boasting that it is the only Palestinian group that fulfilled its promise to retaliate against Israel over the Jerusalem unrest. The message Hamas is sending to the Palestinians is ...

  11. People also search for