“No one is looking at us or the extent of this disaster or the crimes that we are experiencing in Gaza,” he said. Still holding his microphone, he slid off his flak jacket marked with the word PRESS and unstrapped his helmet.
“These protection jackets and helmets don’t protect us,” he said, flinging the equipment to the ground. “Nothing protects journalists. … We lose our lives for no reason.”
Whatever label you want to put on it, the conflict existed before October. It is a continuum of back and forth violence
Whatever label you want to put on it, there was a ceasefire in place and had been one for years.
I don’t know what ceasefire you’re referring to, I couldn’t find any documentation for a ceasefire.
In 2023 there are multiple instances of Hamas launching rockets at Israel, Israeli soldiers killing Hamas, and Hamas killing Israeli soldiers. You can check the Wikipedia of the conflict for the details.
A ceasefire that allows for rocket attacks, and soldiers fighting, seems ineffective
The ceasefire meant that Gaza wasn’t subject to military action on the scale of a war, like it is today. A low, simmering conflict involves a few hundred deaths a year, a war is orders of magnitude more vicious. You know this. Why are you deliberately being obtuse?
conflicts like this have multiple participants, who have multiple viewpoints, and you’re not doing justice to the conflict by saying there was peace before October.
I’m not being obtuse, I’m trying to use English correctly:
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/cease-fire#English
cease-fire (plural cease-fires)
In warfare, an agreed end to hostilities for a specific purpose. (Typically only temporary).
By pointing out the continued history of violence, we have demonstrated that there was not a end of hostilities, that there was not an agreement between the belligerent parties, there was not a ceasefire.
I will agree with you, however before October, Gaza strip was being ignored. The world was more or less happy with the situation, but the gazans weren’t.