Skip to main content

Palestine-Israel Conflict(after intifada)

 Palestine-Israel Conflict(after intifada)

Following the Intifada, there was a shift in public opinion and government policy. There has been a change in political ideology to the right. The Israeli administration has decided to manage the issue rather than attempt to resolve it. As a result, Israeli forces withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, knowing well well that, regardless of the outcome of the future negotiations, Gaza would never become a part of the State of Israel. Following the pullout, elections were held, and Hamas was victorious, allowing them to gain further influence in 2006. They were able to seize control of the entire Gaza Strip by evicting a rival group known as Fatah in 2007. Hamas began blasting rockets into Israeli territory.

Following the acquisition of the newly discovered power, the blockade of Gaza was initiated. When you blockade a location, you are preventing products or persons from entering or leaving. Because of the closure, the situation in Gaza has deteriorated significantly during the previous ten years. In the years 2008, 2012, and 2014, three battles were fought in the Gaza Strip. These conflicts are referred to as the Gaza Wars. Thousands of people have died. Both Hamas and Israel have carried out attacks against civilians.

When long-time Fatah party leader and Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat died in November 2004, Fatah member Mahmoud Abbas was elected President of the Palestinian National Authority in January 2005, succeeding Arafat. One of the most prominent allegations levelled against the Palestinian Authority following Arafat's death was that over the years, Arafat and Fatah officials had received billions of dollars in aid from foreign governments and organisations but had failed to put this money to use in the development of Palestinian society as they should have done.

Authorities said that the funds were used to cover personal costs for Arafat. Eventually, these allegations gained prominence, resulting in an increase in popular support for the Palestinian militant group Hamas, which was frequently perceived by Palestinian society as being more efficient and honest, primarily due to the fact that it had established a number of institutions and social services.

As part of its declaration, Hamas stated unequivocally that it did not acknowledge Israel's right to exist and that it did not recognise either the Oslo or any other peace process with Israel. Hamas has also said repeatedly over the years that it has sponsored and organised acts of terrorism against Israelis over the course of many years.

The increasing popularity of the Hamas organisation among Palestinians, the gradual disintegration of the Palestinian Authority and the Fatah organisation, as well as the Israeli disengagement plan and, most significantly, the death of Yasser Arafat, all contributed to a policy shift by the Hamas movement in early 2005, which began putting greater emphasis on the organization's political characteristics.


With its victory in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in 2006, Hamas prompted the United States and many European countries to cut off all financial assistance to the group and the Palestinian Authority, insisting that Hamas recognise Israel, abandon violence and accept previous peace agreements in the region. Given that Hamas has never renounced its beliefs that Israel does not have a right to exist and that the entire State of Israel is an illegal occupation that must be eliminated, Israel has refused to engage in negotiations with them.

EU countries and the United States have threatened an economic boycott against Hamas if the organisation does not recognise Israel's existence, does not renounce terrorism, and does not support the peace agreements that have been signed between the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Israel in the past. Officials from Hamas have said unequivocally that the movement does not accept Israel's right to exist, despite the organization's expressed willingness to engage in a long-term truce with Israel. Hamas is deemed a terrorist organisation by Israel and 12 other nations, and as such, it is not permitted to engage in formal peace negotiations

It was December 19, 2008, when a shaky six-month truce between Hamas and Israel came to an end. Hamas and Israel were unable to reach an agreement on the terms of an extension of the truce. Hamas has accused Israel of failing to remove the embargo on the Gaza Strip. Israel accuses Hamas of breaking the cease-fire, citing the frequency with which rockets and mortars are fired into Israeli territory.

In the beginning of the Israeli campaign, the Gaza Strip was subjected to a heavy bombardment that targeted Hamas bases, police training camps, police headquarters, and police offices.

Civilian infrastructure, such as mosques, homes, medical institutions, and schools, was also targeted.. Israel has claimed that many of these structures were utilised by combatants as well as storage facilities for weapons and rocket launchers.

Throughout the conflict, Hamas increased the frequency and intensity of its rocket and mortar attacks against Israeli targets, including previously untargeted cities like as Beersheba and Ashdod. The Israeli ground assault began on January 3, 2009, according to the Israeli military. It is estimated that more than 1,300 Palestinians died as a result of the operation. Beginning in 2009, the United States government has regularly called on the Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to halt settlement construction in the West Bank and rekindle the peace process between Israel and the Palestinian people.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree