Sure A Not

The Hamas organization launched a surprise assault on Israel, entering the nation from Gaza and killing thousands of civilians and kidnapping lots of victims.

Defense clashes between Israel and Hamas are common. Since 2007, Hamas has engaged Israel in a number of war and carried out dozens of lethal terrorist attacks.

Israel has frequently attacked Hamas with airstrikes in retaliation for those assaults, and since 2007, Egypt has blockaded Gaza by land, air, or sea. Living standards are significantly impacted by this siege, which restricts what can be brought into Gaza, forbids all exports, and imposes tight restrictions on immigration and exit.

But, Saturday’s attack was exceptional and of a magnitude never before seen.

Israeli, US, EU, and UK nations have all designated Hamas, or in some instances, its military aircraft, al-Qaissam regiments, as a terrorist organization. Iran supports it and gives it money, munitions, and education.

Hamas was established during the first revolution, which ran from 1987 to 1993. To overthrow Israel’s guideline and create an independent Palestinian state, Palestinians staged a series of rebellion in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. Although it was mostly non-violent, there were a few instances of marble pushing, civil disobedience, and other techniques.

Hamas is an abbreviation for the Islamic Resistance Movement, also known as Harakat al-Muqawama al – Islamiya. It was founded by Palestinian cleric Sheikh Ahmed Yassin to take the place of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad( PIJ ), a group that threatened to drive Palestinian support away from the region’s active transnational Islamist movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood.

The founding of a Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel were the goals of the radical and dramatic movement Hamas, which was founded in 1988. Inciting violence against Jews, enforcing Sharia rules, and rejecting any efforts to bring about peace were even mentioned in the contract.

In 2017, Hamas updated its mandate, omitting mentions of murdering Jews and appearing to soften its stance toward Israel by mentioning the establishment of the Palestinian state in accordance with the June 4, 1967 agreement.

But, the new contract stated that Palestine, which stretches from Ras Al-Naqurah in the northwest to Umm Al – Rashrash, is” extended from the River Jordan in west to the Mediterranean in west.” Now, a sizable portion of Jewish place is covered by this geography. One of Hamas’ catchphrases,” From the valley to the water ,” still connotes a complete takeover of Israel.

Private rule under Hamas

The Gaza Strip, a region of the Arab territories, is governed by Hamas’ social extension. The West Bank, which is governed by the Palestinian Authority( PA ), is the other component.

The Fatah group, the main group within the Palestinian Liberation Organization, is in charge of the PA. Hamas does hardly recognize Israel, whereas Fatah is a liberal, nationalist group.

In the 2006 congressional vote, which was the last one held in the Palestinian territories, Hamas defeated Fatah. Because Hamas is viewed by many in the West as a criminal organization that does not recognize Israel’s right to exist, the 2006 election was never recognized by the Western world.

In the end, the team gained control in Gaza in 2007 while the PA remained in power in the West Bank. Since then, no vote has been called.

People’s lives have been somewhat improved by some cultural, financial, and social activities under Hamas’ democratic rule over the Gaza Strip, such as school administration. Hamas’ fraud, however, also has an effect; instead of local programs, the group focuses and spends a lot of money attacking Israel.

The Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in the Palestinian Territories conducted a survey of 1, 270 adults in June 2023, and found that the political division of Palestinian territories— with PA ruling the West Bank and Hamas governing Gaza — was” the most damaging development that has occurred since 1948, followed by the occupation of the WBank and the Gaza Strip in 1967.”

According to the same crown, only one-third of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank would support Hamas over PA in a national poll.

Despite numerous human rights violations, such as the harassment and abuse of LGBT individuals, women, and political critics, Hamas continues to enjoy these relatively high levels of support. It is questionable whether aid will be strong following this invasion and the new siege Israel has imposed on Gaza, cutting off supplies of food, light, and waters.

The exact motivation behind Hamas’ invasion is unclear. Given the timing, it’s possible that the group wants to keep the Israel-Saudi marriage from becoming normal. This peace agreement, which has been in the works for months, would result in Israel’s acknowledgment by Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia may obtain security assurances from Israel’s closest friend, the US, in return.

But, it is obvious that Israel and Hamas are currently at war.

Veronika Poniscjakova teaches as a top training fellow at the University of Portsmouth’s Military Education program.

Under a Creative Commons license, this post has been republished from The Conversation. Read the original publication.

Continue Reading

Israel’s sudden assault on Israel on Saturday, the day before the 50th celebration of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, caused the world oil prices to soar.

After the United States provided financial support to Israel in the Arab-Israeli War, the world crude cost nearly quadrupled up next between late 1973 and early 1974.

Oil exports to countries like the US, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan were halted by the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries( OPEC ).

Had it occur once more? The answer is almost definitely no, despite the adage that past doesn’t duplicate but it rhymes. While there are strange parallels between the activities of 1973 and the present, these distinctions are more significant.

This day, things are different.

Israel faced off against two oil-producing countries in the 1973 conflict: Egypt and Syria.

The Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries imposed an oil embargo after the US offered assistance to Israel, followed by a string of manufacturing reductions that raised the price of crude globally.

Israel and Hamas, the Islamist organization in charge of the little Gaza Strip, which is bordered by Israel, Egypt, and the Mediterranean Sea, are at battle in 2023.

Israel and Gaza neither produce a lot of fuel.

Cost growth has been temporary.

It’s probable that Iran, a country rich in oil, will take part in the fight. Although its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has denied Iran’s role, it is rumored to have assisted in the planning of the Hamas harm.

Additionally, it’s possible that oil-exporting countries will reduce items in a show of support for Hamas.

However, there is currently no reason to think that this will occur, and the price of crude hasn’t changed all that much.

Brent crude‘s rate increased by 15 % from about US$ 95 per chamber to US$ 110 when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.

Russia had been the third-largest oil producer in the world, producing approximately 10 % of the global supply.

The Brent simplistic value, in contrast, ended on Friday( prior to the Hamas attack ) at about US$ 84. On Monday, it increased to$ 88 before falling back, falling far below even the$ 94 peak from the previous month.

Why was there even a slight raise?

Not every increase in oil prices is brought on by a source issue.

My analysis demonstrates how changes in demand can also be significant. These fall under the categories of” speculative demand” and” precautionary demand.”

The need for more oil to keep in reserve in case supply becomes scarce is referred to as cautionary demand. Investors who anticipate profiting from more rate increases are the source of speculative demand. Both increase the price of fuel.

The good news is that, barring an unforeseen event, both effects ought to be fairly transient. The results of this situation have been minimal thus far.

Jamie Cross teaches figures and entometrics as an assistant professor at Melbourne Business School.

Under a Creative Commons license, this essay has been republished from The Conversation. read the article in its entirety.

Continue Reading

Less than a week after hosting the US-Pacific Islands Forum Summit gathering in Washington, DC, the United States government allowed funding for the Marshall Islands and Palau to expire at the end of September. The 45-day temporary finances passed last week did not include the earmarked funds.

If the money is never restored, China may be able to intervene and offer crucial financial support to the Pacific Island archipelagos. Without US guidance, neither Palau nor the Marshall Islands may fulfill their budgets.

The Marshall Islands, Palau, and the Federated States of Micronesia are the three Western island states with which the US maintains Compacts of Free Association.

The three beach nations give the US the right to run military bases in the islands and generate decisions pertaining to their physical security in exchange for security guarantees, financial support, and rights for their citizens to live, research, or work in America.

In addition to installing long-range over-the-horizon detector in Palau and operating a nuclear weapon protection test site on the Kwajalein atoll in the Marshall Islands, the US military also intends to maintain armed presence there permanently. Big US air and naval bases located in Guam support these facilities and will do so in the future.

On the way to the Philippines and Australia, the three beach states are situated west-southwest of Hawaii. They cover a vast maritime region but have smaller populations and meager economies after being taken from the Japanese during large battling during World War II. The Marshall Islands are home to about 42 000 individuals, Palau has 18, 000, and the Federated States of Micronesia has 115 000.

The US governed the beach claims as regions of the Pacific Islands’ United Nations Trust Territory, which also included Saipan and the other Northern Mariana Islands, from 1945 to 1978. In 1975, the Northern Marianas decided to become a republic. The various three towns made the decision to formally join the US as free state.

The Marshall Islands are best known for their nuclear weapons testing, which were conducted between 1946 and 1958 on the islands of Bikini and Enewetak. Residents were forced to flee, and nuclear fallout contaminated these islands as well as a number of others, resulting in illness, fatalities, or long-term economic harm.

A 15-million dwt blast from the 1954 Castle Bravo hydrogen bomb on Bikini was roughly 1,000 times larger than the World War II nuclear weapon the US dropped on Hiroshima.

Since then, the US government has paid out roughly$ 600 million in compensation for damages, environmental recovery and rehabilitation, resettling displaced people, and health and medical applications.

However, the Marshall Islands are requesting an further$ 3 billion and a formal apology. When compared to the US defence budget, which is currently over$ 800 billion, and the guidance given to Ukraine so far, these sums pale in comparison.

The US, however, is pushing a tough agreement. Joseph Yun, President Biden’s special minister in charge of negotiating the Compacts of Free Association contracts, claimed to have told his Marshall Islands peers,” Listen, there is no more money ,” during a legislative hearing in July. He added that the nuclear topic had been resolved in the 1980s, according to The Guardian.

David Stilwell, an Air Force colonel colonel and former assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, was quoted by Voice of America, which was supported by the US Congress, as saying,” We have to draw a line there.”

Over the following 20 years, that line is$ 7.2 billion in President Biden’s budget for 2024 for all three island states. Of this,$ 2.9 billion would go to the Marshall Islands, and$ 700 million would be set aside to address nuclear-related problems.

Given that both Yun and Stilwell are obviously worried about China, it is difficult to accuse them of being unable to discover the Pacific for the palm trees. A general election is scheduled for November 20 in the Marshall Islands, where the US contributes roughly 40 % of the federal budget.

The financial situation of Palau is likewise severe. President Surangel Whipps Jr. recently stated in an interview with the Voice of America that Palau will be unable to give its payments as of January 1, 2024, if the US Congress does not reinstate the originally agreed money.

Additionally, he added,” When the US commits to everything, are they really committed?” I believe this is the most significant impression it projects on Palau and the citizens of Palu.

In retaliation for its unwillingness to cut ties with Taiwan, China, which was once Palau’s main cause of holiday revenue, reduced the number of visitors it permitted to the beach.

Whipps claims that as a result, between 2016 and 2019, the number of Chinese visitors who came to Palau fell by more than 50 %, which led to the city’s GDP falling by over 30 % and its state having to borrow money from the Asian Development Bank. The international tourism sector was then hit by Covid-19.

Palau may have resumed its fiscal stability on October 1 if US funding had been provided as anticipated, but it is currently in a precarious position.

However, according to Yun,” If we don’t approve that package in a timely manner, we seriously jeopardize our credibility in the region and obviously in relation to what we are saying about competing with China. “& nbsp

The Marshall Islands and Palau continue to have political ties with Taiwan. A proposed local security pact with China was rejected by the Federated States of Micronesia in 2022 despite their political ties to the People’s Republic of China. They typically have a favorable attitude toward the US and are afraid of China, but Kiribati’s example cannot be disregarded.

Southeast of the Marshall Islands and Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of Kiribati changed its designation from Taiwan to People’s Republic China in 2019.

In exchange, it has gotten help in the fields of agriculture, medical, and tourism, including the improvement of an airport that the government of Kiribati claims is for human use but which the US and others see as giving China a potential defense foothold.

The Biden administration has made a sincere effort to improve relations with Pacific Island says after years of abuse. The second US-Pacific Island Country Summit meeting took place in Washington, DC, in September 2022.

Since then, the US has established diplomatic ties with the Cook Islands and Niue, plans to open an ambassador in Vanuatu in 2024, opened offices in the Solomon Islands, and extended diplomatic recognition to those nations.

Biden stated a number of priorities at the next meeting, which was renamed the US-Pacific Islands Forum Summit and took place from September 25 to 26, this yr. These priorities included providing extra development aid, strengthening local institutions, enhancing modern connectivity via undersea cables, supporting the Compacts of Free Association, and working” quickly to meet the needs of the Republic of Marshall Islands.”

We know that the United States stands high for its renewed relationship with the Pacific Islands, and it is crucial for all of us to maintain that words are met with actions, but it’s unclear if he was paying attention when Marshall Islands President David Kabua stated to the UN General Assembly on September 20 that” we even have grave growth challenges.”

They most likely will remain, but China is likely to pick up the game if the US lets it go.

Follow this author on Twitter at @ ScottFo83517667.

Continue Reading

Three kilometers outside of Adelaide’s dock, a 12-ton fish vessel weighs anchor. A small group of people gathers around a tiny underwater, turns on the handles, primes the explosives, and throws it into the water. The second, constrained port channel that is in charge of the state’s primary fuel supply is where the underground drone uses sensors and sonar to fly.

You may infer the remainder. Australia, a nation that imports more than 90 % of its energy and conducts 99 % of trade by sea, could suffer catastrophic effects from any blockage, accident, or explosion.

Australia’s 34, 000 kilometers of beach likely face a serious potential menace as drone ships or” uncrewed underwater vehicles”( UUVs ) become more affordable, more widespread, and more advanced.

What is possible? Our analysis, which was verified through workshops with experts from all over Australia, demonstrates that the same technologies can improve our maritime protection if we incorporate them into our planning moving forward.

Seabed conflict

Australia’s priority for underwater security is growing, but not by itself. France introduced its Seabed Warfare Strategy in 2022 to combat automatic underwater marine challenges. In response to the Nord Stream oil line’s damage in September 2022, NATO established an Undersea Infrastructure Coordination Cell in February 2023.

Smaller, inexpensive underwater drones have played a significant role in the Ukrainian war. Underwater robots have also made it possible for Ukraine to launch asymmetrical strikes on Russian forces.

Among other things, present drones can be used for intelligence, surveillance, surveillance, mine countermeasures, electronic warfare, antisubmarine war, underwater sensor network development, and special operations.

However, it’s possible that their capabilities will grow. The Haidou – 1 project in China dove to a degree of 10, 908 feet.

The Haiyan, a Taiwanese underground aircraft, has traveled 3, 600 km across the South China Sea in 141 days, breaking the drone sub-elimination record. Although some economists question its existence, Russia boasts of having a design underwater trailer that is nuclear-powered and military.

To manage underground ocean domains, nations are also creating more comprehensive programs.

For example, the Advanced Undersea Warfare System proposed by the United States envisions a community of stationary underwater stations capable of deploying both offensive and defensive drones.

China is building an” Underwater Great Wall” of boats, stand, and drones in the South China Sea to keep an eye on the region and make it challenging for foreign warships to work in foreign waters.

a novel era of maritime conflict?

These changes, according to some experts, mark the start of a” new age of naval battle.” Others contend that as automatic coastal systems become more affordable and efficient, they might be preferred to crewed ones for national defense. According to one estimate, by 2052, more than half of the US naval fleet will be made up of uncrewed ships.

The development of ocean drones may also spur cross or” gray area” approaches to conflict, which can cost adversaries a lot of money while avoiding outright combat and reducing casualties. Uncrewed marine vessels does provide state with a legitimate means of waging war to further their objectives in this situation.

Drone submarines, on the other hand, have a tendency to cause obvious incidents and other behaviors that are unrelated to their instigators. On this level, it is worthwhile to quote the European Seabed Warfare Strategy:

A” convenient” injury in a coastal area or deliberate military action could both result in an assault on the underground portion of submarine wires. In this regard, the ocean is the perfect setting for non-attributable steps in” grey zones” due to its inherent characteristics.

The path that leads to Australia

The threat posed by intelligent, uncrewed underwater vehicles to Australia’s industry was the subject of our recent research.

We held sessions with representatives from the government, the Royal Australian Navy, security, business, and universities in collaboration with colleagues at the RMIT Centre for Cyber Security Research and Innovation, Charles Darwin University and WiseLaw.

Between efforts to safeguard ocean-borne industry and essential underwater infrastructure today and more forward-looking strategies aimed at creating the next generation of coastal defense, we discovered a growing tension.

Australia has committed to purchasing and building nuclear-powered submarines as part of the AUKUS security pact, and it wants to do so in order to” acquire and develop new techniques with more undersea features.” This is a good beginning, but the size of the purchases has raised worries that Australia’s government may use them exclusively.

Australia also tests cutting-edge sea security systems through competitions like Autonomous Warrior. However, the dangers to marine industry that underwater robots are likely to create in the future are not fully explored in these exercises.

Our sessions have led to the observation that mines are now seen as a potential problem. Loitering drones loaded with explosives, which could even be commercially available ships carrying homemade explosive, could impede traffic and business ports, stifle naval resources, or obstruct coastal shipping lanes. Delays, a loss of revenue, and higher insurance payments may result from this.

Mine have an enormous impact because they can cause significant damage for a low cost as” set and miss” weapons. Additionally, it is challenging and expensive to locate and destroy them.

Australia is currently essentially shielded from the danger posed by underwater drones by distance. Uavs would need to be deployed from reasonably close by due to current battery and communication technology, and operating in Australia’s coastal environments may be challenging.

But, technology is developing immediately. The Australian Department of Defense is running out of time to deal with the threat posed by underground uncrewed cars.

Matthew Warren is the chairman of the RMIT University Center for Cyber Security Research and Innovation, and Adam Bartley is a doctoral fellow there.

This post makes use of studies supported by the Department of Defense’s Strategic Policy Grants Program. In order to help separate study, events, and activities, the Defense can use the Strategic Policy Grants Program as an open and competitive tool.

The authors’ opinions are expressed here, not always those of the American government or security.

Under a Creative Commons license, this essay has been republished from The Conversation. read the article in its entirety.

Continue Reading