US Vetoes Palestinian Request For Full UN Membership



20 Years of Talks Keeping Palestinians Occupied

Israeli Settler Population has doubled to over 500,000 since 1993

$6.3 Billion annual expenditure of Israeli Settlements in West Bank

15,000 Palestinian Homes Destroyed

4,500 Outstanding Demolition Orders of Palestinian Homes in West Bank

Israeli Settlement and Palestinian Displacement

Israeli Restrictions and Palestinian Fragmentation

US vetoes Palestinian request for full UN membership

Washington blocks security council resolution supported by 12 member countries, with two abstentions including UK

INLTV Investigation Team notes that Iranian Officials say these Israeli Drones where shot down and this no damages was caused to Iran

Here are the latest developments. from the New York Times

The Israeli military struck Iran early on Friday, according to two Israeli and three Iranian officials, in what appeared to be Israel’s first military response to Iran’s attack last weekend but one whose scope, at least initially, appeared to be limited.

The Iranian officials said that a strike had hit a military air base near the city of Isfahan, in central Iran. Initial reaction in both Israel and Iran was muted, with news media in both countries appearing to play down the attack, in what analysts said was a sign that the rivals were seeking to de-escalate tensions. For nearly a week, world leaders have urged Israel and Iran to avoid sparking a broader war in the region.

INLTV World News Weather Update Iran Shot Down Israeli Drones Over Iran

19th April 2024 Part 1A

Iran Media: Explosion heard near airport in Isfahan Iran

Israel Iran Middle East Military Aggression Hots Up 19th April 2024 Part 6

Iran Media: Explosion heard near airport in Isfahan Iran

Israel Iran Middle East Military Aggression Hots Up 19th April 2024 Part 5

Explosion in Iran Airport likely Israeli Air Strike on Iran

Israel Iran Middle East Military Aggression Hots Up 19th April 2024 Part 4

Explosion in Iran Airport likely Israeli Air Strike on Iran

Israel Iran Middle East Military Aggression Hots Up 19th April 2024 Part 3

US Vetoes Palestinian Attempt To Gain Statehood At The United Nations

US Vetoes Palestinian Attempt To Gain Statehood At The United Nations Part 2

"..During 17th to 18th April, 2024 there were 70 plus more Palestinians Murdered in Gaza, including women and children ... ..Job well done Bibi.. "..UK's Lord David Cameron

UK's Lord David Cameron Congratulates Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu for successfully murdering over 20,000 Palestinian women and children and injuring over 70.000 Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank

Proud Partners in Crime 

UK's Lord David Cameron Congratulates Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu for successfully murdering over 20,000 Palestinian women and children and injuring over 70.000 Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank..

Lord David Cameron, the UK Foreign Secretary and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, are both facing criminal prosecutions in their own countries. A Criminal Contempt Application was filed in the High Court of London against Lord David Cameron, the UK Foreign Secretary by INLNewsTV undercover journalist Thomas Graham Allwood, however it was arranged for MI5/Mi6 to murder Thomas Graham Allwood in Broxburn Scotland a few weeks before the first Criminal Contempt Application Hearing in the London High Court. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2019 has been Charged with fraud, bribery and breach of trust. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can be sentenced to up to 10 years in jail if convicted on the bribery charge.

More Palestinians Tortured and Injured By Israel's IDF- Major Expansion of Israeli Illegal West Bank Settlements, with Israel's USA and UK Partners condoning all these war and international humanitarian crimes, which are illegal under international law by continuing to provide billions of dollars of more weapons to support the expansion of Israel's Gaza Palestinian War and Humanitarian Crimes in Gaza and the West Bank

The United Nations Security Council

The US has vetoed a Palestinian request to the United Nations security council for full UN membership, blocking the world body’s recognition of a Palestinian state.

The vote in the 15-member security council was 12 in favor, the United States opposed and two abstentions, the UK and Switzerland.

US officials had been hoping Washington could avoid use of its veto if other states objected to a draft resolution before the council recommending the “State of Palestine be admitted to membership of the United Nations”.

Before the vote, diplomats said the US mission had been trying to convince one or two other council members to abstain, to mitigate Washington’s isolation on the issue, but American officials said they were resigned to having to wield the US veto once more in support of Israel.

Washington’s position is that the emergence of a Palestinian state had to be the outcome of negotiations on all aspects of a Middle East peace settlement.

“We completely believe in the two-state solution and a state for the Palestinian people. We believe the best and the most sustainable way to do that is through direct negotiations between the parties,” the White House national security spokesperson, John Kirby, told reporters on board Air Force One on Thursday.

Palestinians currently have non-member observer status, granted by the UN general assembly in 2012. An application to become a full member with voting rights would have to be approved by the security council and two thirds of the general assembly.

“Recent escalations make it even more important to support good-faith efforts to find lasting peace between Israel and a fully independent, viable and sovereign Palestinian state,” António Guterres, the UN secretary general, told the council.

“Failure to make progress towards a two-state solution will only increase volatility and risk for hundreds of millions of people across the region, who will continue to live under the constant threat of violence,” he said.

Guterres also said that Israel’s commitment to improving aid access to the Gaza Strip has had limited or no impact.

“Apparent progress in one area is often cancelled out by delays and restrictions elsewhere,” the secretary general said.

“For example, although the Israeli authorities have cleared more aid convoys, those clearances are often granted when it is too late in the day to make deliveries and return safely,” he explained. “So the impact is limited, and sometimes nil.”

20 Years of Talks Keeping Palestinians Occupied

Israeli Settler Population has doubled to over 500,000 since 1993

$6.3 Billion annual expenditure of Israeli Settlements in West Bank

15,000 Palestinian Homes Destroyed

4,500 Outstanding Demolition Orders of Palestinian Homes in West Bank

Israeli Settlement and Palestinian Displacement

Israeli Restrictions and Palestinian Fragmentation

It is this invasion of Lebanon, and ultimately of Beirut, including catastrophic massacres of Palestinians in the Shatila refugee camp, and its surrounding Sabra neighborhood, that brought Beirut to its knees.  


Mitra scuttles forward to 2005, or so it seems, from the 1970s to discuss the Oslo Accords:


“And then again what happens in 2005? Now, there was a government of Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres who signed the deal with the PLO, with Yasser Arafat, and made what is called the Oslo peace process and everything. What happens with that, with what was meant to become the independent Palestinian state, the West Bank plus Gaza. And what ends up happening is Yitzhak Rabin is killed by a Jewish fundamentalist. He’s succeeded by his foreign minister Shimon Peres, who was crucial to making that peace. Guess who shuttled Shimon Peres? Shimon Peres was a man wedded to peace. He wanted more than anything else to see two countries at peace with each other and at peace with their neighbors. He was moving towards peace. What did the Palestinians do? They started suicide bombing of commuter busses in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv in which 50, 70, 80 people would die.”

Again, the dates throw off anyone who knows anything about the subject because in 2005 Ariel Sharon was Prime Minister. Yitzhak Rabin was dead. And Shimon Peres lost an election. It seems as though he’s discussing 1993, which is when Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn. But in hindsight it’s impossible to imagine that this was ever anything but a charade. Here is Rashid Khalidi on Rabin:


“While Rabin had done something no other Israeli leader had ever done by formally conceding that there was a Palestinian people, accepting the PLO as their representative, and opening negotiations with it, obtaining in return its recognition of the state of Israel, this exchange was neither symmetrical nor reciprocal. Israel had not recognized a Palestinian state or even made a commitment to allow the creation of one. This was a peculiar transaction, whereby a national liberation movement had obtained nominal recognition from its oppressors, without achieving liberation, by trading its own recognition of the state that had colonized its homeland and continued to occupy it. This was a resounding, historic mistake, one with grave consequences for the Palestinian people.” (Khalidi, The Hundred Years’ War, page 129).

On Peres, Khalidi remarks:

“This team was assembled by Shimon Peres, who was no more prepared to see the Palestinians as equals or to countenance Palestinian statehood and sovereignty than were Rabin or Shamir. The Palestinian envoys at Oslo were simply out of their league, lacking resources and training, none of them having been in occupied Palestine for decades, and having failed to study and absorb the results of our ten rounds of negotiations with Israel. The deteriorating situation of the Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories after Oslo since the mid-1990s has been in large measure the result of the choice of envoys whose performance at Oslo was inept, and of ‘Arafat and his colleagues’ willingness to sign the defective agreements they drew up.” (Khalidi, The Hundred Years’ War, page 129).

The end result was a war process more than a peace process. One of capitulation and bullying. Here is Pappe’s assessment:


“So, in truth, without the application of extreme pressure, there is no reason in the world why a native population would ever volunteer to partition its homeland with a settler population. And therefore we should acknowledge that the Oslo process was not a fair and equal pursuit of peace, but a compromise agreed to by a defeated, colonized people. As a result, the Palestinians were forced to seek solutions that went against their interests and endangered their very existence.

The same argument can be made about the debates concerning the “two-states solution” that was offered in Oslo. This offer should be seen for what it is: partition under a different wording. Even in this scenario, although the terms of the debate appear different, Israel would not only decide how much territory it was going to concede but also what would happen in the territory it left behind. While the promise of statehood initially proved persuasive to the world and to some Palestinians, it soon came to sound hollow. Nonetheless, these two intertwined notions of territorial withdrawal and statehood were successfully packaged as parts of a peace deal in Oslo in 1993. Yet within weeks of the joint signature“on the White House lawn, the writing was on the wall. By the end of September, the Accord’s vague principles had already been translated into a new geopolitical reality on the ground under the terms of what was called the Oslo II (or Taba) agreement. This included not just partitioning the West Bank and the Gaza Strip between “Jewish” and “Palestinian” zones, but partitioning further all the Palestinian areas into small cantons or Bantustans. The peace cartography of 1995 amounted to a bisected series of Palestinian zones that resembled, in the words of quite a few commentators, a Swiss cheese.” (Pappe, Ten Myths About Israel, page 69).


The suicide bombings about which Mitra ignorantly asks, “Why would you carry out suicide bombings against a guy who was committed to a two state solution?” emerge because the so-called peace process further entrenched the occupation and Israel refused to relent. Here is Pappe’s take on the emergence of both non-violent and violent demonstrations as a result of the worsening situation in the name of peace:

“The truth is, it was a mass demonstration of dissatisfaction at the betrayals of Oslo, compounded by the provocative actions of Ariel Sharon. In September 2000, Sharon ignited an explosion of protest when, as the leader of the opposition, he toured Haram al-Sharif, the Temple Mount, with a massive security and media presence.

The initial Palestinian anger was expressed in non-violent demonstrations that were crushed with brutal force by Israel. This callous repression led to a more desperate response—the suicide bombers who appeared as the last resort in the face of the strongest military power in the region. There is telling evidence from Israeli newspaper correspondents of how their reports on the early stages of the Intifada—as a non-violent movement crushed by the Israeli army—were shelved by their editors so as to fit the narrative of the government. One of them was a deputy editor of Yeidot Ahronoth, the main daily in the state, who wrote a book about the misinformation produced by the Israeli media in the early days of the Second Intifada.” (Pappe, Ten Myths About Israel, page 73).


Mitra would have it that the kingpin of peace was actually the same Sharon whose visit to Haram al-Sharif ignited the second intifada:

“Then who they consider the incarnation of the devil, a guy called Ariel Sharon becomes prime minister. He wants to show again his bona fides and say if you give me peace – the deal was land for peace. If you give me peace, I will give you land. And Gaza at this time had lots of Israeli kibbutzes that were the main source of employment in that region…So he [Sharon] dismantles all these collectives, Jewish collective societies, forcibly drags all of them back and he’s showing, look, I am willing to do for you what we did with Egypt in 1979, which is dismantle everything from the Gaza Strip and give you your independence. And this is now held up to the West Bank saying, look what we did for you in Gaza. We’ve given you, we’ve withdrawn everything. We’re not even negotiating about it. So you’ll keep hearing the Palestinians say, oh, they’re going on building settlements, more settlements, and they’re annexing more land. Everything is up for negotiation.”

The reality of Sharon is so far from what Mitra imagines is far from a land-for-peace deal. His blind acceptance of Israeli hasbara (propaganda) is obvious with his incessant blaming the victim. Indeed, Sharon’s use of word “withdrawal” was a calculated attempt to dupe ignorant people like Mitra. It’s more like an interim exchange of less coveted land for more coveted land as Pappe explains:


The plan offered an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the closure of the handful of settlements there, as well as several others in the West Bank, in return for the annexation of the majority of the West Bank settlements to Israel. The Americans also knew all too well how another crucial piece fitted into this puzzle. For Sharon, the annexation of those parts of the West Bank he coveted could only be executed with the completion of the wall Israel had begun building in 2003, bisecting the Palestinian parts of the West Bank. He had not anticipated the international objection—the wall became the most iconic symbol of the occupation, to the extent that the international court of justice ruled that it constituted a human rights violation. Time will tell whether or not this was a meaningful landmark.” (Pappe, Ten Myths About Israel, page 85; emphasis mine).

Throughout this interview it’s obvious that Allahbadia struggles to grasp what Mitra is saying and he regularly seeks clarification as he does following Mitra’s ramblings about the string of so-called peace leaders in Israel:

Allahbadia: “So one thing, the solution oriented mindset is Israel’s. That’s what you’re saying.”

Mitra: “It used to be Israel’s and then the Palestinians were so intransigent that you now have Netanyahu who is not pro – in word, he is pro a two state solution, but in action he’s not pro a two state solution.”

Allahbadia: “In action what is he?

Mitra: “In action, he wants Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Well, they’re not in occupation of the West Bank technically, but he wants more and more land to be taken up by settlers.”

It’s hard to imagine that someone can say that “technically” Israel doesn’t “occupy” the West Bank. It’s like saying 2+2=5. United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 from 1967 demands the end of this military occupation, for starters. But all of the hot air coming out of Mitra’s mouth prior to this point – especially about land for peace and settlers – how do those things transpire if there isn’t already an occupation?


Mitra shifts from the so-called peace process to the Bronze Age because he seems intent on establishing that Palestinians are a violent and destructive people, but also a people who don’t exist. Here is how he begins to square that circle:

“1177 BC[E] is the agreed date for the Bronze Age collapse. And one of the things about the Bronze Age collapse was in the Mediterranean was there was this whole bunch of people called the Sea People who destroy civilization after civilization. Ancient Greece was destroyed by them. That is the Greece of Homer and the Iliad and Troy and all of that. They destroyed the Hittite Empire. They destroy all the Levantine states at that point of time. They almost succeed in destroying Egypt, but Egypt is the only civilization at that point that survives. One of the people out there are called the Peleset. Okay, we know them by name because of the Egyptian records. Some are called the Shardana, some are called the Peleset. The Shardana are, we think, they came from Sardinia, hence Shardana. And Peleset, we believe, are the Palestinians. And the Bible refers to them as Peleset or something like that.”

Because Mitra is neither well read nor a scholar, he obviously doesn’t follow scholarship so he is unaware that the sea people theory has been displaced. Nur Masalha, whose historical scholarship was some of the earliest to reveal the reality of Zionist history, shares some of the latest research about who the Peleset were in his recent volume Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History:

“A cognate of the name Palestine, ‘Peleset’, is found on five inscriptions as referring to the settlement of a seafaring people along the southern Palestinian coast from the mid-12th century BC during the reigns of Ramesses II and III of the nineteenth Egyptian dynasty. The 3200-year-old documents from Ramesses III, including an inscription dated c. 1150 BC, at the Mortuary Temple of Ramesses III at the Medinat Habu Temple in Luxor – one of the best-preserved temples of Egypt – refers to the Peleset among those who fought against Ramesses III, who reigned from 1186 to 1155 BC. Ramesses III’s war against the so-called ‘sea peoples’ (1181‒1175 BC) placed Peleset, geographically, in the land of Djahi, that is Palestine. In fact, new archaeological discoveries from a 3000-year-old Philistine graveyard in Ascalon have resulted in a new paradigm on the origins of the Philistines, firmly suggesting that they were not marauding Aegean invaders of the southern Levant or ‘sea peoples’ that appeared in Palestine in the course of the Late Bronze Age, but an indigenous population of the Near East.” (Masalha, Palestine, page 49; emphasis mine).

Jumping from sea to hill people, Mitra begins talking about what seems to be another group of people who are further inland near Jerusalem, but his vague language about people and their territories makes it hard to pinpoint:

World / Middle East

US vetoes Palestinian attempt to gain statehood at the United Nations

U.S. vetoes Palestinian bid for full UN membership

  • Barak Ravid
  • Maltese Minister for Foreign and European Affairs and Trade Ian Borg chairs the United Nations (UN) Security Council meeting on April 18, 2024.
  • The UN Security Council, New York, April 18. Photo: Selcuk Acar/Anadolu 
  • The U.S. on Thursday voted no and vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution to accept Palestine as a full member of the UN.

    Why it matters: The vote comes six months into the Hamas-Israel and amid intense pressure on President Biden internationally and among his own party to do more to address the dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

    • The administration has faced criticism from some Democrats for its continued support of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government in the war against Hamas.

    Driving the news: The U.S. used its veto power in the 15-member UN Security Council to oppose a draft resolution that would give Palestine full member status at the UN instead of its current observer status.

    • There were 12 votes in favor of the resolution: Russia, China, France, Japan, South Korea, Ecuador, Algeria, Malta, Slovenia, Sierra Leone, Mozambique and Guyana.
    • Two member states — the U.K. and Switzerland — abstained from voting.

    Catch up quick: The Palestinian ambassador to the UN renewed the request for full UN membership for Palestine two weeks ago.

    • A UN Security Council committee discussed the request and on Tuesday said the 15 council members are divided about whether they should recommend accepting Palestine as a full member, according to a copy of the report.
    • Over the last two weeks, the Biden administration has been pressing Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his advisers to not move forward with their bid, but Abbas rejected those requests, Axios earlier reported.

    What they're saying: The Palestinian presidency condemned the U.S. veto and said it is a "blatant violation of international law" that encourages Israel to continue its war against the Palestinians.

    • The U.S. representative at the meeting said the vote doesn't mean the U.S. is against a Palestinian state but that it should be a result of direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and not a unilateral move through the UN.
    • State Department deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel said earlier Thursday the U.S. would be voting no to the proposed resolution and mentioned there wasn't unanimity on the council that the criteria for membership were met.
    • He added that according to U.S. law, if the resolution passed, the Biden administration would have to defund the UN, which is not something it wants to do.

U.S. vetoes widely supported UN resolution backing full UN membership for Palestine


UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The United States vetoed a widely backed U.N. resolution on Thursday that would have paved the way for full United Nations membership for the state of Palestine.

The vote in the 15-member Security Council was 12 in favor, the United States opposed and two abstentions.

The resolution would have recommended that the 193-member General Assembly, where there are no vetoes, approve Palestine becoming the 194th member of the United Nations. Some 140 countries have already recognized the state of Palestine, so its admission would have been approved.

This is the second Palestinian attempt to become a full member of the United Nations, and it comes as the war in Gaza, now in its seventh month, has put the more than 75-year-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict at center stage.

Before the vote, U.S. deputy State Department spokesman Vedant Patel said the United States has “been very clear consistently that premature actions in New York — even with the best intentions — will not achieve statehood for the Palestinian people.”

READ MORE: Israeli military again tells displaced Palestinians not to return to northern Gaza

Palestinian membership “needs to be the outcome of the negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians,” U.S. deputy ambassador Robert Wood said. It “is something that would flow from the result of those negotiations.”

Anything that gets in the way “makes it more difficult to have those negotiations” and doesn’t help move toward a two-state solution where Israel and Palestine live side by side in peace, which “we all want,” Wood told reporters.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas first delivered the Palestinian Authority’s application for U.N. membership to then-Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in 2011. That initial bid failed because the Palestinians didn’t get the required minimum support of nine of the Security Council’s 15 members.

The Palestinians then went to the General Assembly and by more than a two-thirds majority succeeded in having their status raised from a U.N. observer to a non-member observer state in November 2012. That opened the door for the Palestinian territories to join U.N. and other international organizations, including the International Criminal Court.

The Palestinians revived their bid for U.N. membership in early April, backed by the 140 countries that have recognized Palestine as an independent state.

Ziad Abu Amr, special representative of the Palestinian president, said adopting the resolution would grant the Palestinian people hope “for a decent life within an independent state.”

He said such “hope has dissipated over the past years because of the intransigence of the Israeli government that has rejected this solution publicly and blatantly, especially following the destructive war against the Gaza Strip

He stressed to the Security Council that it won’t be an alternative “for serious negotiations that are time-bound to implement the two-state solution” and U.N. resolutions, and to resolve pending issues between Palestinians and Israelis.

Amr asked the U.S. and other countries opposed to its U.N. membership how that could damage prospects for peace or harm international peace and security when they already recognize Israel and approved its U.N. membership.

“To grant the state of Palestine full membership will be an important pillar to achieve peace in our region, because the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and its different dimensions now goes beyond the borders of Palestine and Israel and impacts other regions in the Middle East and around the world,” the Palestinian envoy said.

Israeli-Palestinian negotiations have been stalled for years, and Israel’s right-wing government is dominated by hard-liners who oppose Palestinian statehood.

Israeli U.N. Ambassador Gilad Erdan called the resolution “disconnected to the reality on the ground” and warned that it “will cause only destruction for years to come and harm any chance for future dialogue.”

Six months after the Oct. 7 attack on southern Israel by Hamas, which controlled Gaza, and the killing of 1,200 people in “the most brutal massacre of Jews since the Holocaust,” he accused the Security Council of seeking “to reward the perpetrators of these atrocities with statehood.”

Israel’s military offensive in response has killed over 32,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza’s health ministry, and destroyed much of the territory, which speaker after speaker denounced Thursday.

Erdan listed the requirements for U.N. membership — accepting the obligations in the U.N. Charter and especially being a “peace-loving” state.

“What a joke,” he said. “Does anyone doubt that the Palestinians failed to meet these criteria? Did anyone hear any Palestinian leader even condemn the massacre of our children?”

Netanyahu dismisses calls for restraint, saying Israel will decide how and when to respond to Iran’s attack

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Wednesday his country would be the one to decide whether and how to respond to Iran’s major air assault earlier this week, brushing off calls for restraint from close allies.

Cameron said “it’s clear the Israelis are making a decision to act” against Iran, but he hoped they would do so “in a way that is smart as well as tough and also does as little as possible to escalate this conflict.” He spoke after meeting with Israel’s President Isaac Herzog, whose office is mainly ceremonial.

Baerbock said Germany stands “in full solidarity with Israel” but called on it to exercise restraint.
“Everyone must now act prudently and responsibly. I’m not talking about giving in. I’m talking about prudent restraint, which is nothing less than strength,” she told reporters. “Because Israel has already shown strength with its defensive victory at the weekend.”

The ministers said they would push for further international sanctions on Iran.

Iran’s President Ebrahim Raisi warned Israel against any retaliation as he addressed an annual army parade, which had been relocated to a barracks from its usual route and was not carried live on state TV — possibly because of fears that it could be targeted.

In remarks carried by Iran’s official IRNA news agency, Raisi said Saturday’s attack was limited, and that if Iran had wanted to carry out a bigger attack, “nothing would remain from the Zionist regime.”

Regional tensions have soared since the Oct. 7 attack on southern Israel launched by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Palestinian armed groups supported by Iran. The attack killed some 1,200 Israelis, and the militants took around 250 hostages. Israel responded with one of the deadliest and most destructive military onslaughts in recent history, killing nearly 34,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health officials, who do not distinguish between combatants and civilians in their count but say most of the dead are women and children.

Israel has withdrawn most of its forces from Gaza after major offensives that left its two biggest cities — Gaza City and Khan Younis — in ruins. But Israeli officials say the war is not over and that they plan to send ground forces into the southernmost Gaza city of Rafah, where more than half the territory’s population of 2.3 million people have sought refuge from fighting elsewhere.

Hamas is still holding around 130 hostages, a quarter of whom are believed to be dead, and international efforts to broker a cease-fire and hostage release have made little progress.

Hezbollah, another close Iran ally, has traded fire with Israel along the border on a near-daily basis since the war began, in a low-intensity conflict that risks igniting all-out war. Iran-backed groups in Iraq and Syria have also launched attacks, and the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen have targeted international shipping in the Red Sea, portraying it as a blockade of Israel.

Associated Press writers Nasser Karimi in Tehran, Iran, Jill Lawless in London and Kirsten Grieshaber in Berlin contributed to this report.

A timeline of recent events that led to Iran’s assault on Israel

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Iran’s dramatic aerial attack on Israel follows years of enmity between the countries and marks the first time Iran has launched a direct military assault on Israel.

The hostility between the countries has only worsened in the six months since Hamas launched its attack on Israel, which set off a war that continues to threaten to drag the entire region toward a broader conflict.

Here is a look at the key events leading up to Iran’s assault:

Oct. 7, 2023 — Hamas attacks Israel

Thousands of Hamas-led militants storm across the border into Israel, killing 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking roughly 250 captive, according to Israeli authorities. The assault triggers a devastating war that has killed more than 33,700 people, mostly women and children, according to local health officials.

In launching the assault, Hamas hopes other regional enemies of Israel’s will join. U.S. President Joe Biden warns Israel’s regional foes not to get involved and sends military support to the Middle East.

Oct. 8, 2023 — Hezbollah joins the war, at a low level

A day after Hamas’ attack, the Iran-backed Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah begins firing toward Israel, setting off months of low intensity but deadly cross-border fighting that displaced tens of thousands of people on both sides of the border.

Nov. 2023 — Houthis stage Red Sea attacks

The Yemeni rebels, who are supported by Iran, launch a campaign of drone and missile attacks on shipping assets in the Red Sea beginning in November, describing their efforts as a way to pressure Israel to end the war against Hamas.

They also fire missiles toward Israel, although those largely fall short or are intercepted.

April 1, 2024 — Israel widely blamed for Damascus strike

Two Iranian generals with the country’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guards are killed in the Syrian capital in a strike on an Iranian consular building that is widely blamed on Israel, although it does not publicly acknowledge it. Iran promises revenge.

April 14, 2024 — Iran launches major aerial assault on Israel

Israel says more than 300 drones, cruise and ballistic missiles are launched by Iran, an extraordinary assault that is thwarted almost entirely by Israel’s aerial defense array and a coalition of countries repelling the onslaught. While no major damage is caused, the world braces for Israel’s response.