New York Times (November 1)
“After shocks from the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, there’s little cushion if the fighting between Hamas and Israel becomes a regional conflict.” An escalation would cloud “the global economy’s outlook, threatening to dampen growth and reignite a rise in energy and food prices.” An escalation would also mark the first time the world has dealt with two simultaneous energy shocks.
Tags: Energy, Escalation, Fighting, Food, Global economy, Hamas, Invasion, Israel, Outlook, Pandemic, Regional conflict, Russia, Shocks, Ukraine
New York Times (October 14)
“Israel finds itself at war because of the depravity of Hamas. Further bloodshed now appears unavoidable, but the way Israel fights will begin to determine what happens next: Defeating Hamas will make Israel safer; showing disregard for the killing of civilians will not.”
Tags: Bloodshed, Civilians, Defeating, Depravity, Hamas, Israel, Killing, Safer. Disregard, Unavoidable, War
Financial Times (July 17)
The current fighting between Israel and Hamas “looks like a new episode in a wearisomely familiar feud.” But the ongoing tragedy must be brought to an end. “Israel cannot remain oasis of peace in a region on fire.” The “Palestinians need a state of their own.”
The Economist (November 21)
“Who Won?” is the question being asked now that the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is in place. The answer depends on who is being asked. “Basically, the Israelis are saying they hit Hamas hard in their round-the-clock bombing assault and thus enhanced their deterrent power which was their stated objective at the outset of these eight days of bombardment. Hamas, for its part, says that despite the vast disparity in firepower, it is still up and running—and still firing rockets into Israel—which makes it the winner at least on points.”