Explainer: Five things to know about the Hamas militant group’s unprecedented attack on Israel
Without warning on Saturday, Gaza’'s militant Hamas rulers attacked Israel by air, land and sea. Millions of Israelis in the country’s south awoke to the searing sound of incoming rockets and the inevitable thud of impact. Air raid sirens wailed as far north as Tel Aviv. Israel’s anti-rocket interceptors thundered in Jerusalem.
And in an unprecedented escalation, armed Hamas fighters blew up parts of Israel’s highly fortified separation fence and strode into Israeli communities along the Gaza frontier, terrorizing residents and trading fire with Israeli soldiers.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right allies were scrambling to respond to the rapidly changing events. Within just nine hours, some 40 Israelis and nearly 200 Palestinians were confirmed dead, with the numbers expected to rise.
Here are some key takeaways from the multi-pronged attack that has suddenly plunged Israel into war.
Israel caught unaware
The shock that Israelis felt on Saturday morning—on Simchat Torah, one of the most joyous days of the Jewish calendar—recalled the surprise of the 1973 Mideast war. Practically 50 years earlier to the day, a full-scale Egyptian-Syrian attack on a Jewish holiday quickly turned into a disaster for an unprepared Israeli military.
Then, as now, Israelis had assumed that their intelligence services would be able to alert the army to any major attack or invasion well in advance. That colossal failure still haunts the legacy of then-Prime Minister Golda Meir and helped bring down the lengthy rule of the once-dominant Labor Party.
Now, the question of how the militants were able to stage such a huge and coordinated attack—which has already killed more Israelis than any single assault since the second Palestinian uprising two decades ago—without triggering Israeli intelligence concerns has already presented a major challenge to Netanyahu’s ultranationalist government.
The government’s supporters had expected Netanyahu and powerful hard-line ministers with a history of anti-Arab rhetoric like National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir to take a particularly belligerent stance against the Palestinians and respond more forcefully to threats from militants in Gaza.
As political analysts lambast Netanyahu over the failure, and the casualty count climbs, Netanyahu risks losing control of both his government and the country.
Unprecedented infiltration
Hamas claimed its fighters had taken several Israelis captive in the enclave, releasing gruesome videos of militants dragging bloodied soldiers across the ground and standing over dead bodies, some of them stripped to their underwear. It said that senior Israeli military officers were among the captives.
The videos could not immediately be verified but matched geographic features of the area. Fears that Israelis had been kidnapped evoked the 2006 capture of soldier Gilad Shalit, whom Hamas-linked militants seized in a cross-border raid. Hamas held Shalit for five years until he was exchanged for over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.
In a dramatic escalation unseen in decades, Hamas also sent paragliders flying into Israel, the Israeli military said. The brazen attack recalled a famous assault in the late 1980s when Palestinian militants crossed from Lebanon into northern Israel on hang-gliders and killed six Israeli soldiers.
The Israeli army belatedly confirmed that soldiers and civilians had been taken hostage in Gaza, but refused to provide further details.
A dangerous gamble by Hamas
Hamas officials cited long-simmering sources of tension between Israel and the Palestinians, including the dispute around the sensitive Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, which is sacred to both Muslims and Jews and remains at the emotional heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Competing claims over the site, known to Jews as the Temple Mount, have spilled into violence before, including a bloody 11-day war between Israel and Hamas in 2021.
In recent years, Israeli religious nationalists—such as National Security Minister Ben-Gvir—have increased their visits to the compound. Last week, during the Jewish harvest festival of Sukkot, hundreds of ultra-Orthodox Jews and Israeli activists visited the site, prompting condemnation from Hamas and accusations that Jews were praying there in violation of the status quo agreement.
Hamas statements have also cited the expansion of Jewish settlements on lands that the Palestinians claim for a future state and Ben-Gvir’s efforts to toughen restrictions on Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.
More recently, tensions have escalated with violent Palestinian protests along the Gaza frontier. In negotiations with Qatar, Egypt and the United Nations, Hamas has pushed for Israeli concessions that could loosen the 17-year blockade on the enclave and help halt a worsening financial crisis that has sharpened public criticism of its rule.
Some political analysts have linked Hamas’ attack to ongoing US-brokered talks on normalization of ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia. So far, reports of possible concessions to Palestinians in the negotiations have involved Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, not Gaza.
“We have always said that normalization will not achieve security, stability, or calm,” Bassem Naim, a senior Hamas official, told the AP.
Israel in crisis
The eruption of violence comes at a difficult time for Israel, which is facing the biggest protests in its history over Netanyahu’s proposal to weaken the Supreme Court while he is on trial for corruption.
The protest movement, which accuses Netanyahu of making a power grab, has bitterly divided Israeli society and unleashed turmoil within the Israeli military. Hundreds of reservists have threatened to stop volunteering to report for duty in protest at the judicial overhaul.
Reservists are the backbone of the country’s army, and protests within the army ranks have raised concerns about the military’s cohesion, operational readiness and power of deterrence as it confronts threats on multiple fronts. Netanyahu on Saturday called up “an extensive mobilization of reserve forces.”
A perilous cycle
Israel and Hamas have fought four wars and exchanged fire numerous times since the Islamic militant group seized control of Gaza from forces loyal to the Palestinian Authority in 2007. Cease-fires have stopped major fighting in past rounds of conflict but have always proven shaky.
Each agreement in the past has offered a period of calm, but the deeper, underlying issues of the conflict are rarely addressed and set the stage for the next round of airstrikes and rockets.
With its increased leverage in this round, Hamas is likely to push harder for concessions on key issues, such as easing the blockade and winning the release of prisoners held by Israel.
AP
Nepal condemns terrorist attack in Israel as nine Nepalis injured
The militant Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip have launched an unprecedented, multifront attack on Israel, firing thousands of rockets. Dozens of Hamas fighters infiltrated the heavily fortified border at several locations, catching the country off-guard during a major holiday. Israel has reported at least 40 casualties while other international media say the death toll has reached 100.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that Israel was ‘at war’ and called for a mass mobilization of army reserves.
The Nepali government has strongly condemned the ‘terrorist attack’ in Israel that left nine Nepalis injured. “At this critical hour, we express our solidarity with the Government of Israel,” stated the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The Nepali government extended heartfelt condolences and deepest sympathies to the people and Government of Israel, as well as to the victims of this cruel attack and their families. “We wish for a speedy recovery of the injured,” added the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The Nepali government received information that a farm where 14 Nepalis were working came under attack. Nine Nepalis have been reported injured, with two of them in serious condition.
The Embassy of Nepal in Israel is in close communication with the Nepalis living in the affected areas. The Embassy is also in contact and coordination with Israeli authorities to ensure the safety, security, and rescue of the Nepalis, as well as providing medical treatment for the injured, officials say.
Given the situation, Nepali nationals in Israel are urged to remain cautious and follow the safety measures advised by the authorities, the Ministry stated.
American President Joe Biden has strongly condemned the “appalling assault against Israel by Hamas terrorists from Gaza” and mentioned that he has spoken with Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu.
In a statement released by the White House, Biden conveyed to the Israeli leader that “we stand ready to offer all appropriate means of support to the Israeli government and the Israeli people”. Biden also emphasized that the Jewish state “has a right to defend itself and its people”. He warned against any other party hostile to Israel seeking advantage in this situation.
The president underscored that his administration’s support for Israel’s security is “rock solid and unwavering”.
Various other Western leaders also condemned the Hamas attack and expressed their support for Israel.
Contact
Nepal Embassy in Israel: +972(0)35168085
Amb Kanta Rizal: +972545864423
1st Secy Arjun Ghimire: +972528289300
Email: [email protected]
Should we? Shouldn’t we?
The world around Nepal has been turning at a dizzying pace even as we remain in turmoil as ever. Gone is the unipolar world that was under the command of the sole superpower after the fragmentation of the Soviet Union in the early 90’s.
Looking back, Nepal has always sought to reach out to a wider world. It established its first diplomatic relations (with the United Kingdom) in 1816 and now has formal ties with around 180 countries. It joined the United Nations on 14 Dec 1955 and has also been part of the Non-Aligned Movement founded in 1961.
It is a founding member of the grouping called South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) that dates back to 8 Dec 1985 with its secretariat set up in Kathmandu on 17 Jan 1987.
In February 2004, Nepal became a member of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation that was established on 6 June 1997.
Nepal, though, took quite a long time in joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) established on 15 June 2001, becoming a dialogue partner seven years ago—only on 22 March 2016.
Had our political leadership been thinking long and hard about such associations and what they bring to the table? Well, anything is possible.
Fast forward.
In our neighborhood, China is emerging as the second largest economy with a nominal GDP of $19, 423.48bn and as the second most powerful country in the world, militarily. India is not lagging far behind, with a PPP GDP of $3,591.03 and as the fourth strongest military force in the world. Beyond the neighborhood, Russia is again emerging as a formidable power, along with a number of other countries like Indonesia, South Korea, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Brazil, South Africa and Turkey.
India recently hosted the G20 summit that saw the 24-year-old 20-member grouping welcome one more member to its fold—African Union, to be formally inducted later—in the presence of one more country from our extended neighborhood, Bangladesh (a robust economy in its own right), which was invited as a guest, along with Egypt, Mauritius, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Oman, Singapore, Spain and the UAE.
Climate change was one of the agendas of the summit and Nepal happens to be one of the countries suffering the most from the impact of this largely manmade disaster but seems to have lost its voice in the international arena.
After the summit, a number of questions have arisen. They are: What does the apparent snubbing of Nepal at the summit that took place in a country with which we have cordial relations mean? Does it mean Nepal’s concerns, including those related to climate change, can easily be brushed under the carpet? What does it mean for Nepal’s standing in the comity of nations?
There’s no doubt that the summit would have given Nepal, a member of the Global South, a golden opportunity to share its worries with the world and make big polluters accountable for a huge GHG emission that has wreaked havoc around the world, in the form of ozone depletion, rising temperatures, glacial retreat on the Himalayas, flash floods in the plains and a steady rise in sea levels.
The summit was a huge miss for Nepal, given that the 19 G20 countries account for 85 percent of global gross domestic product, over 75 per cent of global trade and two-thirds of the globe’s entire population—not to mention a huge GHG footprint, the main culprit behind climate phenomena like glacial retreat, glacial lake outburst floods and rising temperatures.
For now, let’s leave G20 aside and move on.
BRICS, thus far a grouping of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa and an economic mammoth in its own right, has also been hogging the limelight of late. The 15-year five-nation club, comprising 40 per cent of the world’s population and more than 25 percent of global GDP, has been positioning itself as an economic counterweight to the West. What’s more, the non-military bloc is growing bigger with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Argentina and the United Arab Emirates set to join it at the start of 2024.
This, even as Nepal finds itself in ever-deepening crises on socio-economic, socio-religious and socio-political fronts, not entirely of its own making. Perhaps a desolate SAARC secretariat located in the heart of Kathmandu, a silent spectator to a long-running enmity between South Asia’s two giants that has been holding the bloc hostage for far too long, best explains Nepal’s dilemmas.
Against this backdrop, ApEx asked a number of experts whether Nepal should strive to join emerging blocs like BRICS to make its voices heard and its presence felt in international fora. Here’s what they had to say.
Professor Katak Malla, Expert on International Law
BRICS is a huge commodity market that seeks to curtail Euro-dollar domination. Nepal should not join any of the military blocs, it should remain non-aligned but it should of course join blocs like BRICS. If we become a BRICS member, we can use Chinese and other currencies for trade and commerce instead of having to rely on the Euro and dollar, and we can make our voice count using this forum. SAARC, of which Nepal is a founding member, has remained moribund because of enmity between Pakistan and India, and there are calls for reforms in the United Nations—amid the rise in the fortunes of several countries—to make the world body more representative.
Political instability and the rule of law are lacking in the country. First and foremost, Nepal’s leaders and the public should mend ways to arrest this slide. The government should come up with a relevant domestic policy before joining any bloc.
Pradip Gyawali, Former Foreign Minister and UML Leader
We are a small economy and as things stand now, we seem to be in no position to benefit from blocs like BRICS. Even if we strive to join the bloc, it’s unclear how BRICS members will respond.
Many countries are seeking an alternative to the US-led global economy, they are rooting for de-dollarization. BRICS does not seem to be a strategic bloc, it appears to be a trade and cooperation forum, which is good for us. Overall, Nepal should look upon initiatives like BRICS positively. As for the CPN-UML, it favors multilateralism. In the long run, I think, it is in our interest to join blocs like BRICS as dependence on the dollar will decrease with increase in the use of local currencies.
Khadga KC, Professor, Department of International Relations and Diplomacy, TU
Being a relatively small state, Nepal always needs to prioritize multilateralism. Engaging more with regional and multilateral frameworks could be beneficial, however, we are not benefiting much from our association with WTO and BIMSTEC. So, I don’t think we need to rush in to socialize with the emerging economies.
Rajan Bhattarai, Chief, CPN-UML’s Foreign Affairs Department
Nepal should step up efforts to join any sub-regional, regional and international organization whose objectives are compatible with her foreign policy objectives and priorities.
With Saudi Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Argentina and the UAE set to become its new members on Jan 1 next year, BRICS (comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa at present) is one such organization that our country should make efforts to be a part of. The bloc aims to promote international peace, stability, cooperation and investment and these objectives are similar to Nepal’s foreign policy objectives.
So, our country should make attempts to be a member of this grouping. If our party—the CPN-UML—comes to power, we will intensify our engagements to join sub-regional, regional and international organizations whose vision, missions and objectives are in sync with our foreign policy objectives and priorities. Of course, BRICS is one of the organizations that we will strive to join.
Sagun Sunder Lawoti, Spokesperson, RPP
King Prithvi Narayan Shah fittingly called Nepal a yam between two boulders. Our two neighbors are rising, signifying the transformation of a unipolar world order into a multipolar order, even as we find ourselves in a deep crisis. In terms of size, our two neighbors are far bigger than us. At the same time, more than half of the countries around the world are smaller than us—in terms of population and geographical area. As such, size is a relative term. We as a nation need to work out ways to deal with a changing world that is offering both challenges and opportunities. What should our policy vis-a-vis blocs like BRICS and G20 be? What does the rise of neighbors mean for us? What challenges does it pose and what opportunities does it offer? Nepal has immense geostrategic advantage and opportunities. But then our leaders are focusing on petty interests rather than long-term national benefits.
Surya Raj Acharya, Political Analyst
BRICS is a grouping of emerging economies, of countries transitioning from developing to developed economies. It is basically a non-strategic and non-military bloc focused on trade and commerce.
Bangladesh recently tried to join the grouping, but failed. It was but natural for that country to seek BRICS membership because it has a robust economy. Another case is the UAE, which will be formally inducted into BRICS soon. The UAE has made huge strides on the economic front over the decades and it deserves to be in the bloc.
Given the size of their economy, countries like Thailand, the Philippines and Bangladesh fit the bill.
As a country of geostrategic significance, Nepal should strive for BRICS membership in the long run. Nepal’s geopolitical location gives it an edge and the size of the country is no bar, though the size of the economy matters.
Having said this, the present scenario is not rosy. The economy is not doing well. Besides, there’s no clear roadmap on how to deal with China, India, the United States and the European Union. The country seems to have no coherent foreign policy, thanks to the absence of well-defined domestic policies of which foreign policy is an extension. Petty interests of political parties have taken precedence. The rulers don’t even know what our national priorities are. Nepal’s international standing has taken a beating.
We must first agree on our national interests and national priorities and this should be reflected in our domestic policies. Our national interest, not petty interests of political parties, should guide our foreign policy.
In the long run, we should strive to join blocs like BRICS because they enable us to raise our profile, bring in foreign direct investment and benefit from technology transfer as well as trade and commerce partnerships.
Dhawal Shumshere Rana, Leader, RPP
There’s a huge gap between BRICS member-states and Nepal. They are emerging powers and they won’t induct us into the grouping given this gap. At present, it’s futile for Nepal to even think about it.
The group of G20
Argentina
Australia
Brazil
Canada
China
France
Germany
India
Indonesia
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Mexico
Russia
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
Turkiye
The United Kingdom
The United States
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)
Member-states
China
India
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyzstan
Russia
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Uzbekistan
Dialogue partners
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Cambodia
Nepal
Sri Lanka
Turkey
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Bhutan
India
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
Sri Lanka
Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC)
Bangladesh
India
Sri Lanka
Thailand
Myanmar
Bhutan
Nepal
Why did EPG fail?
In 2016, Nepal-India relations were at one of their all time lows because of India’s economic blockade. The then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Kamal Thapa, frequently traveled to India to convince the Indian side to lift the blockade which had severely affected life in Nepal.
In one of the meetings with his Indian counterpart, Sushma Swaraj, Thapa had proposed forming a panel on Nepal-India Eminent Persons’ Group (EPG), as agreed by the two countries in 2014, to seek experts’ suggestions to settle the long-standing issues between Nepal and India, including the revision of the 1960 Treaty of Peace and Friendship to reflect the present day realities.
Former foreign minister Thapa shared such information while speaking at a program organized by Tanka Prasad Acharya Memorial Foundation on Friday.
Initially, recalls Thapa, Swaraj was reluctant to form such a panel as the bilateral ties between the two countries were going through a rocky patch, but she agreed eventually. The Nepali side announced its EPG members, all of them picked by Thapa without consulting major political parties and stakeholders.
The names were endorsed by the Cabinet of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli. Former Nepali ambassador to India, Nilambar Acharya, remembers Thapa calling him one evening and asking him to become an EPG member. Acharya asked Thapa for some time to think about the offer, but the latter insisted that the decision had to be made right then and there.
Though it was an expert panel, there were no experts representing the Nepali Congress, CPN (Maoist Center) and Madhes-based parties. Still, the non-represented parties had no issue with the formation of the EPG, as most of the members were non-political figures. The only politician in the EPG, Nepal, was Rajan Bhattarai of the CPN-UML. From India, it was Bhagat Singh Koshiyari of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
In 2018, the EPG prepared its report with its suggestions to the governments of Nepal and India. But Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi refused to receive the report. This turndown essentially halted the progress of the EPG report. During his India visit in May this year, Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal did not raise the EPG issue with Prime Minister Modi lest it should spoil the improving relationship between Nepal and India.
Former Prime Minister and UML leader Oli is probably the only leader who has been consistently and publicly speaking about the importance of the EPG report. Other political parties, mainly the NC and Maoist, seem to have no interest in the issue.
In a public program on Saturday, Oli said that the Nepal-India relations should move ahead “as per the suggestions provided by the EPG report.” He said the report will serve as a prescription to push forward the ties between the two countries.
It has been more than five years since the EPG report was prepared, and the chances of it moving ahead are slim. Already, discussions have begun on what to do with the report. Thapa, the former foreign minister, has suggested that members submit the report to Nepali side and close the chapter on the whole issue. As the report has already submitted its report to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nepal, it can be argued that the EPG has no legal existence.
There are some people who are demanding that the report must be made public at least, if the two governments are not ready to receive it. EPG Nepal coordinator Thapa says he holds the key to the cupboard where the report has been stored and he has been trying to hand it over to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
He adds being the keeper of the report has become a huge burden for him.There are multiple reasons behind the sorry state of the EPG report. First one, obviously, is the composition of the EPG without representations from major political parties.
But there are those who argue that since the EPG was a panel of experts, there was no need for a party-wise representation. The only thing lacking, they say, is the consensus of parties and involvement of major political actors. The NC, Maoists and Madhes-based parties are not willing to take ownership of the EPG report.
It should also be noted that the Indian side was never in favor of forming a panel for the purpose of, among other things, suggesting revision to the 1950 Peace and Friendship Treaty. Several issues that the EPG was dealing with were heavily politicized.
Experts reiterate that there should be a national consensus for the EPG report to move ahead.
Though the report is yet to be made public, the Indian side has expressed dissatisfaction over some provisions that were leaked through the media.
The document has recommended establishing smart borders in order to limit the seamless cross-border movement. In 2018, The Wire reported: “EPG has suggested that a technology-driven structure should be put in place for monitoring the movement along the international boundary, with identity cards as the mode of registration.”
Another point that the Nepal side has proposed is ensuring full independence to purchase arms and ammunition from third countries. To this end, Nepal is intending to change the Article 5 of Treaty which says: “The Government of Nepal shall be free to import from or through the territory of India, arms, ammunition or war-like materials and equipment necessary for the security of Nepal.”
This provision provides full right to Nepal to import arms but protocol to the Nepal-India Treaty of Transit states that “arms, ammunition and hazardous cargo shall not be allowed to be transported by road.” Similarly, Nepal-India Railway Agreement is not sufficient to allow the transit of arms and ammunition from India, experts say.
Similarly, the letter of exchange to this treaty bars Nepal’s independent right to import arms and ammunition from India. The paragraph-2 of Letter of Exchange says: “Any arms, ammunition or war-like material and equipment necessary for the security of Nepal that the Government of Nepal may import through the territory of India shall be so imported with the assistance and agreement of the government of India.
The government of India will take steps for the smooth and expeditious transport of such arms and ammunition through India.” Nepal prefers to scrap both Article 5 and Letter of Exchange with a view that it is fully independent to import arms and other equipment as per its need.
The 2007 India-Bhutan Friendship Treaty had also changed a similar clause in the 1949 version. The new treaty says that Bhutan can import arms as long as Indian interests are not harmed and there is no re-export of the weapons, either by the government or individuals.
Article 6 and 7 in the current treaty encompass the issue of “national treatment” and equal privileges for citizens on each other’s soil. While the spirit has been preserved to an extent, the EPG members have apparently backed Nepal’s position that the Himalayan republic should be able to institute more protection for its own citizens due to the asymmetry in size and economy between the two neighbors.
Nepal is of the view that such provisions are disadvantageous to a small country like Nepal, and given its population, economy and size, it cannot offer equal treatment to Indian citizens in Nepal. Another bone of contention between the two countries is Article 2 of the treaty that states: “The two governments hereby undertake to inform each other of any serious frictions or misunderstanding with any neighboring state likely to cause any breach in the friendly relations subsisting between the two governments.”
Nepal is of the view that as this provision is not implemented, it is better to scrap. There has been war between India and Pakistan and India and China since the signing of the treaty, but India has not informed Nepal of the tensions. Similarly, there has not been any military alliances between the two countries.
Academicians and policy-makers in New Delhi say that India sought Nepal’s favor when there was Doklam crisis in 2017, and Nepal may be asked to take side by India if there is escalating tensions between two countries in coming days. Since the 1962 China-India war, Nepal has maintained a neutral position vis-à-vis India-China conflict and war.
Along with these key provisions, Nepal has proposed to make changes in several other provisions of bilateral treaties and agreements in trade, transit and other areas, but Nepal’s major concern is the 1950 treaty.
The main purpose behind the formation of EPG was to suggest ways on how to amend the treaty. There are also views on whether it was prudent to form a panel like the EPG to deal with sensitive issues between two countries.
Some experts say the two countries should have instead formed government-level mechanisms to work out the outstanding issues, which they can still do with national political consensus.
