Day: October 13, 2023

Trump says he stands with Netanyahu after a barrage of GOP criticism for saying he ‘let us down’  WRIC ABC 8News

Netanyahu slammed for sparking panic with very rare Shabbat address to the nation  The Times of Israel

Opinion | Why Israel Must Reconsider Its Gaza Evacuation Order  The New York Times

A former Deutsche Bank executive testified this week that the German financial behemoth only agreed to make blood-curdling loans to Donald Trump because of the mistaken perception that Trump’s personal fortune was larger than he claimed it was. The bank apparently stupidly relied on financial statements provided by Trump to support the claim that he was far wealthier than he really was.

The Deutsche Bank executive, Nicholas Haigh, testified in Manhattan as part of New York Attorney General Letitia James’ $250 million civil fraud lawsuit against Trump. Reviewing the bank’s internal documents in court with Haigh, James’ attorneys demonstrated that the bankers didn’t really believe all of Trump’s claims about his wealth. They estimated that Trump was significantly less wealthy than he claimed, but they were still convinced that he had more money than he actually did.

Okay, those are the facts. Now the question is, how is it possible that people with undeserved reputations for high net worth continue to get away with this? One answer is that, despite the horrid lessons of the crash of 2007-2008, we still fail to properly punish banks for such violations and we still fail to build in penalties for runaway profit-taking on the part of the banks.

Deutsche Bank wasn’t just tricked, they were willingly tricked. With transactions such as this, the larger the loans, the greater their fees. Individual bank executives can get very rich very fast from fees they collect for making huge loans, so the temptation to “believe” the applicant despite the evidence is great.

Once the loan is made, if the loan goes bad the bank doesn’t come back to the executive who collected the fees in the first place and demand their money back. Instead they go after the property of the loan recipient. If the property of the loan recipient is insufficient to cover the loss then the banks take a loss. If the loss is big enough, so big as to endanger the continuation of the bank’s existence, the bank will turn to its government for a “bail-out.”

That is what happened in 2008 when dozens of banks nearly failed, and a few did along with loan-originator Lehman Brothers, as the result of making billions of dollars in loans for overvalued properties. When tens of thousands of customers couldn’t pay their mortgages, customers who should have never received their loans in the first place, the banks needed rescuing. They turned to their respective governments and received those massive bail-outs.

Instead of putting the offending bank executives in jail, many executives were unjustly rewarded with huge bonuses paid by the bail-outs! So who ultimately picked up the cost for all of this? Ordinary money-saving citizens like you and me who didn’t benefit from loans or the absurd fees paid for the loans.

Today banks such as Deutsche Bank are paying customers ridiculously low interest rates for their money. The banks are making money charging fees for “products,” such as junk insurance, products that their customers don’t want and don’t need but were talked into buying anyway by greedy bank managers.

This is the sick culture that people like Donald Trump have exploited to their considerable benefit for years. In collusion with the greedy banks he took millions of dollars in loans he didn’t qualify for. If the loan worked out, people like Trump profited. If the loan went south the rest of us were left holding the bag.

Welcome to the world of legal bank robbery. If you go in the front door with a gun and steal a few measly hundreds or thousands you’ll go to jail for a long, long time. But if you go in the back door and steal millions, historically speaking, nothing will happen to you. In fact you’ll very often wind up profiting anyway and people will think you’re “smart.”

This is Donald Trump’s sleazy, disgusting world. He’s about to find out that all those years of theft and exploiting the system are about to catch up with him. And, as ever, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, comrades and friends, stay safe.

The post How to rob a bank appeared first on Palmer Report.

LONDON/DUBAI (Reuters) – Palestinian militant group Hamas uses a global financing network to funnel support from charities and friendly nations, passing cash through Gaza tunnels or using cryptocurrencies to bypass international sanctions, according to experts and officials.

However, Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, will face even more obstacles accessing funds after the rampage by the group’s gunmen that killed hundreds of Israelis, mainly civilians. Israel has responded with the heaviest bombardment of Gaza in 75 years of conflict.

Earlier this week, Israeli police said they froze a Barclays bank account the authorities said was linked to Hamas fundraising and blocked cryptocurrency accounts used to gather donations, without specifying how many accounts or the value of the assets.

The move provided a glimpse of a complex financial web, some legitimate, much hidden, that underpins Hamas, or the Islamic Resistance Movement, and its government in the Gaza Strip, which it has run since 2007.

Matthew Levitt, a former U.S. official specialised in counterterrorism, estimated the bulk of Hamas’ budget of more than $300 million came from taxes on business, as well as from countries including Iran and Qatar or charities.

Last February, the State Department said that Hamas raises funds in other Gulf countries and gets donations from Palestinians, other expatriates and its own charities.

Reuters was unable to reach Hamas officials for comment for this story. In the past, Hamas has said financial restrictions placed on its donors were an attempt to neutralise legitimate resistance against Israel.

Hamas, sanctioned as a terrorist organization by the United States and countries such as Britain, had increasingly used cryptocurrencies, credit cards or contrived trade deals to avoid mounting international restrictions, Levitt said.

“Hamas has been one of the more successful users of crypto for the financing of terrorism,” said Tom Robinson, co-founder of blockchain research firm Elliptic.

However, this year Hamas said it would back away from crypto, after a spate of losses. Cryptocurrency’s ledger system can make such transactions traceable.

Blockchain researchers TRM Labs said this week in a research note that crypto fundraising has previously increased following rounds of violence involving Hamas. After fighting in May 2021, Hamas-controlled crypto addresses received more than $400,000, TRM Labs said.

However, since last weekend’s violence, prominent Hamas-linked support groups had moved just a few thousands dollars through crypto, TRM noted.

“One likely reason for the low donation volume is that Israeli authorities are targeting them immediately,” TRM said, adding that Israel had seized cryptocurrency worth “tens of millions of dollars” from Hamas-linked addresses in recent years.

Between Dec. 2021 and April this year, Israel seized almost 190 crypto accounts it said were linked to Hamas.

Whether through crypto or other means, Hamas’ allies have found ways to get money to Gaza. The U.S. State Department has said that Iran provides up to $100 million annually in support to Palestinian groups including Hamas, and has cited methods of moving the money through shell companies, shipping transactions and precious metals.

Iranian authorities did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

By last year, Hamas had established a secret network of companies managing $500 million of investments in companies from Turkey to Saudi Arabia, the U.S. Treasury has said, announcing sanctions on the firms in May, 2022.

Israel has long accused Iran’s clerical rulers of stoking violence by supplying arms to Hamas. Tehran, which does not recognise Israel, says it gives moral and financial support to the group.

Backing the Palestinian cause has been a pillar of the Islamic Republic since the 1979 revolution and a way for the country to fashion itself as a leader of the Muslim world.

Gas-rich Qatar too has paid hundreds of millions of dollars to Gaza since 2014, at one point spending $30 million per month to help operate the enclave’s sole power plant and to support needy families and public servants in the Hamas-run government.

“Qatari aid provides 100 dollars to the poorest Palestinian families and extends the period of electricity during a day in Gaza,” a Qatari official said in response to a request for government comment, adding that it had helped “maintain stability and quality of life for … Palestinian families”.

Qatar walks a foreign policy tightrope, hosting the region’s largest U.S. military base, the Taliban and other groups, often allowing it to mediate.

Qatar’s funding for Gaza actually passes through Israel, a source familiar with the process said.

The funds are transferred electronically from Qatar to Israel. Israeli and U.N. officials hand-carry cash over the border to Gaza.

The cash is distributed directly to needy families and public servants in Gaza and each family or individual must sign next to their name that they’ve received the cash. One copy of that sheet goes to Israel, one goes to the UN and one goes to Qatar.

“Qatari aid to the Gaza Strip is fully coordinated with Israel, the UN and the U.S.,” the Qatari government official said.

In recent years, Qatar bought fuel from Israel for Gaza’s sole power station. It also sent Egyptian fuel that Hamas can resell, using the proceeds for salaries.

Stephen Reimer of the think tank, Royal United Services Institute, predicted fresh attempts to fully restrict the group’s access to formal financial channels would have limited success. “Their financing tactics have grown to circumvent these.”

This piece discusses the finale of Love Is Blind Season 5.

When the one and only couple that got married in the fifth season of Netflix’s Love Is Blind exchanged vows in Friday’s finale, my heart sank. It’s not that the moment wasn’t romantic in itself, or that I haven’t, in the past, set aside my concerns about cast members making lifelong commitments to people they’ve only known for a few weeks in order to feel vicarious joy at the show’s unions. It’s just that none of this season’s engaged couples seemed especially compatible—Lydia and Milton, the ones who actually tied the knot, least of all.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

After a relatively low-conflict fourth season that resulted in three marriages out of four couples, fans have been savoring the drama of the show’s latest episodes, featuring singles from Houston. Cast parodies abound on TikTok. The social media platform formerly known as Twitter leaves no interaction undissected (Joel Kim Booster thinks the singles are too hot). Love Is Blind Season 5 has been among Netflix’s three most-watched English-language series every full week since it started rolling out last month. And the takes keep coming. “Love Is Blind Reveals Its Messiest, Most Explosive Twist Yet,” Vanity Fair gasped when it came out that Lydia and another cast member, Uche, had dated before appearing on the show. Vulture went so far as to defend Lydia after Uche accused her of Instagram-stalking his female friends.

Yet, when you remember that there are real people behind the breathless headlines, the show’s soapy mess keeps getting harder to enjoy. Even if you can get past the uninspiring couples and the ambiguity surrounding producers’ role in casting two people who’d unsuccessfully dated, Love Is Blind lawsuits and exposés continue to pile up. The latest to make headlines, from a Season 5 cast member, includes allegations of sexual assault. (The production companies named in the suit, Kinetic Content and Delirium TV, have called its claims “meritless.”) Bad matches and especially reports of dangerous conditions behind the scenes call into question the ethics of watching one of TV’s biggest dating shows. They also suggest a dark side to the boom in unscripted romance—from The Golden Bachelor to Love in Fairhope to Twin Love, to name a few fall releases—that has accelerated over the past few years, with the launch of so many new streaming services that have also made it possible to mainline these programs 24 hours a day.

Reality dating shows have always thrived on a mix of fantasy and conflict. The Bachelor perfected this formula, weaving together one winner’s fairy-tale romance with the scrapping, snarking, and scheming of two dozen or so women who don’t get the guy. By featuring a handful of engaged couples, Love Is Blind strikes its own balance. There are the ones who seem destined for each other from the minute they meet (Lauren and Cameron from Season 1, Brett and Tiff from Season 4), and then there are the ones who drive each other—and viewers—crazy. 

Until Season 5, which followed just three sets of fiancés, all of whom fell into the latter category. By the end of the post-engagement Mexico vacation, JP and Taylor had broken it off because he couldn’t get over how much makeup she’d worn at their first meeting. (Yes, really, on reality TV.) Stacy and Izzy did make it to the altar, but only after weeks of squabbling over his bad credit score and her expectation that her future husband would have the money to bankroll first-class plane tickets. Thankfully, she said I don’t.

Which left the slow-motion trainwreck that was Lydia and Milton. Lydia, a 30-year-old geologist, initially falls for Izzy. When he picks Stacy over her in the pods, she’s briefly crushed. But she quickly moves on to Milton, an engineer who, at 24, is the season’s youngest cast member. Sweet, easygoing, and endearingly nerdy (the two science buffs’ version of flirty banter includes microscope talk), he simply doesn’t seem experienced enough to make a lifelong commitment to anyone—much less a woman who appears to be more interested in locking down some husband, any husband, than she is in any one particular man.

Then it comes out that Lydia and Uche, a 34-year-old lawyer, had dated and broken up months before the taping. We see footage of her identifying him in the pods, and proposing that they give their relationship another shot. Uche isn’t interested. So poor Milton is actually Lydia’s third choice. Meanwhile, on the verge of proposing to Aaliyah, a 29-year-old nurse with whom he shares a love of poetry—but whom he has also harshly shamed for her admission that she is, as he puts it, “a recent cheater”—Uche reveals his past with Lydia, now Aaliyah’s close friend. Lydia proceeds to fill Aaliyah’s head with information about Uche that Aaliyah has begged her to keep to herself. Stressed and confused, Aaliyah leaves the show. A subsequent meeting with Uche is portrayed on the show as a definitive breakup, although both parties have said they continued pursuing a relationship afterward. And then, at a conspicuously choreographed “party” midway through the season, Uche starts makes serious accusations about Lydia’s behavior when they were together.

In other words, it’s a season that could convince you love is not blind but dead—a season that couldn’t even put a happy face on its so-called social experiment by marrying off one reasonably sympathetic couple. (In a reunion episode set to drop on Sunday, Oct. 15 at 8 p.m. ET, we’ll find out if Lydia and Milton are even still married.) And its unpleasantness has made cracks in the show’s foundation more visible than ever. As in past seasons, multiple couples got engaged but weren’t featured in the heavily edited footage, which suggests that none of these relationships was either exciting enough to showcase or idyllic enough to provide a coveted fantasy storyline. 

Maybe, as cast members like Nick Thompson from Season 2 keep speaking out about conditions behind the scenes (and reality stars at large explore unionization), it’s getting harder for the show to attract sympathetic singles who audition “for the right reasons.” One lawsuit, from a Season 2 participant who didn’t make it past the pods, alleges that the cast was underpaid, underfed, sleep-deprived, and over-served alcohol on set. (Kinetic released a statement insisting that there was “absolutely no merit” to these allegations.) In a subsequent investigation from Insider, cast members reported everything from inadequate sleeping accommodations to insufficient mental health screenings. (Kinetic replied: “The wellbeing of our participants is of paramount importance to Kinetic. We have rigorous protocols in place to care for each person before, during, and after filming.”) But the Season 5 lawsuit is the most alarming of all, claiming that plaintiff Tran Dang was sexually assaulted by the man she’d gotten engaged to in the pods, Thomas Smith (who has denied the allegations), and that producers failed to address the situation when she approached them. Neither Dang nor Smith actually appears in the season; they’re not even included in Netflix’s cast list.

A reality title as popular as Love Is Blind was always going to face heightened scrutiny, but even when you account for that extra attention, it’s clear that cast members have continuously come away feeling wronged—at the very least—by the production team. This is nothing new in the reality-dating sphere. Look back on the two-decade history of The Bachelor franchise, and you’ll find a class-action discrimination suit (that was later dismissed), sexual harassment litigation, and a long list of abuse accusations, sexual misconduct controversies, racism, and even suicides involving cast members, on set and off. Without lumping in genuine tragedies with soapy scandals, it seems fair to conclude that the highly stage-managed environment of reality dating just isn’t healthy.

This may be the case for viewers as well as participants. Shows that spotlight super-hot, half-naked singles have been shown to fuel body anxiety and even suicidal thoughts. Speaking of Love Island, the franchise was called out by name in a 2021 Frontiers in Sociology article; Alicia Denby of the University of Manchester concluded that it portrayed “female contestants as overly emotional and irrational,” thus perpetuating “outdated stereotypes surrounding emotionality and hysteria.” And an especially depressing 2006 study found that, as Psychology Today summarized its findings, “the total amount of time spent watching reality dating shows was related to adversarial sexual beliefs, the endorsement of a double standard when it comes to sex, and the belief that men are sex-driven, and that appearance is important in dating.”

That’s even more worrisome when you think about how much more time it’s possible to spend watching this stuff in 2023 than when the study was published. Dating shows aren’t confined to prime-time anymore. You can find them on networks, cable, and streaming—where archives can go back decades, and where reality’s cost-effectiveness has made them an attractive programming option as execs scramble for profits. Love Is Blind’s popularity isn’t an anomaly, either. If The Bachelor franchise had begun to stagnate as competitors proliferated, The Golden Bachelor has renewed viewers’ interest, with more than 11 million people tuning in to the premiere across ABC and Hulu. Last month, the racy British import Naked Attraction—which has singles picking a date from a selection of fully, frontally nude bodies—became Max’s most-watched title.

Creators’ efforts at keeping an aging format fresh have yielded a long tale of offbeat premises. Amazon took an astrological approach with Cosmic Love. Netflix’s atrociously titled Dated and Related and Amazon’s upcoming Twin Love make mate selection a family affair. TLC’s MILF Manor is exactly what you think it is. There are self-aware competitions like Max’s FBoy Island, currently airing its third season, after a move to the CW. Netflix’s The Ultimatum, from the same producers as Love Is Blind, is so ill-conceived that the hosts include a disclaimer: “psychologists agree that an ultimatum is not a good way to get somebody else to do what you want.”

The most insufferable new dating show of the bunch, in my estimation, is neither a competition like The Bachelor nor a social experiment like Love Is Blind. It’s Hulu’s Love in Fairhope, a highly choreographed, Bravo-style docusoap, albeit with a breezier, more romantic tone and alternately pseudo-profound and gently judgmental narration from, for some reason, Heather Graham. The stars are five women navigating love at different stages of life, in the small town of Fairhope, Ala.. Episodes open with an odd note: “The following is a collision of reality and fantasy featuring real people and inspired by their own stories.” Try to deduce from that how much of what you’re seeing reflects the cast members’ real relationships, I dare you. The best reason to believe Fairhope is grounded in reality is that it’s so boring.

As the deceptions, delusions, and alleged abuses of this past season of Love Is Blind have underscored, nothing good can come of so much reality-TV artifice masquerading as true romance. In fact, the more manipulative these shows get, the more they remind me of a very different unscripted series about young people looking for love that recently debuted: Amazon’s Desperately Seeking Soulmate: Escaping Twin Flames Universe. The three-part documentary investigates a disturbing online community whose husband-and-wife leaders got rich off a program that preaches relentless pursuit of one’s supposed spiritual soulmate—and that defectors claim has led to restraining orders, as well as pressure for members to change sexual orientations and gender identities. (Like dating show viewers, adherents are overwhelmingly straight and female. So how do you pair them up as twin flames? Easy: gaslight some of them into believing they’re queer or trans.) Asked to describe Twin Flames’ pricey video seminars, a journalist profiled in the doc likens them to “a therapeutic reality show.” Call it Love Is Divined.

House Republicans were scrambling on Friday to pick a new nominee for the vacant Speaker position after Majority Leader Steve Scalise abruptly dropped out of the race, as competing agendas and deeply held grudges threatened to drag the competition out into next week.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Now in their 10th day without a leader, House Republicans are grappling with how to move forward in the face of intense internal divisions and several mounting issues. With Scalise out of the race, two lawmakers have emerged as the leading candidates: Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, a fiery conservative backed by former President Donald Trump, and Rep. Austin Scott of Georgia, a Scalise ally who announced a late bid on Friday afternoon.

The conference’s inability to coalesce around a candidate has left the House at a standstill, raising concerns about the looming government funding deadline and whether lawmakers will be able to provide support to Israel and Ukraine. Though some lawmakers were bracing for another heated floor vote as soon as that afternoon, as the day passed by, a vote before Monday appeared increasingly unlikely. At least 10 Republicans had already left the Capitol and internal divisions remained, according to several sources. 

While Jordan’s allies have been actively seeking support for his candidacy, moderate Republicans have voiced concerns about rewarding what they see as Jordan’s “bad behavior,” both in recent days and since Republicans took control of the chamber in January. Some have argued that Jordan and his backers, including members of the hard-line House Freedom Caucus, have pursued a takeover of Republican leadership through disruptive tactics, taking advantage of the GOP’s narrow majority. Jordan finished second to Scalise in internal GOP balloting this week, earning 47% of the conference’s vote.

The inability of any Republican nominee to secure 217 votes, a majority in the full House, has thrown the Speaker race into uncertainty. Democrats are expected to unite behind their pick, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, leaving little room for the Republican nominee to garner support from within a GOP conference with a razor-thin majority.

Jeffries has said that he would support a bipartisan coalition speaker if it meant keeping Congress operational, and several Democrats appear willing to support a Republican in exchange for several concessions, such as making it harder for a handful of members to depose a speaker, putting Ukraine and Israel aid on the floor, and allowing Democrats to pass bills in some narrow cases.

Scalise, widely seen as the heir apparent to former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, bowed out of the race on Thursday night, one day after he had narrowly won the nomination within the GOP caucus, as he struggled to round enough votes to get elected Speaker on the full House floor. “This country is counting on us to come back together,” Scalise said after informing the conference of his decision. “This House of Representatives needs a speaker, and we need to open up the House again. But clearly, not everybody is there and there’s still schisms that have to get resolved.”

The House GOP’s internal strife is not limited to the ideological differences between centrists and hard-right conservatives but is a more pervasive issue, with dissatisfaction and resentment rampant across the entire conference. Many within the party are questioning whether any candidate can succeed under the current divisive environment.

“We need to all recognize that this is much bigger than just one person or any single person’s petty feelings,” said Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, a New York Republican, who initially voted for Jordan but later publicly supported Scalise.

The path to securing the Speaker’s gavel continues to be fraught with obstacles, and even Jordan’s closest allies have acknowledged the difficulty of the task ahead. Rep. Greg Murphy, a North Carolina Republican, expressed uncertainty about Jordan’s ability to secure the needed 217 GOP votes. “Personally, I think it may end up being a compromise candidate,” he said.

While Jordan is celebrated by far-right conservatives, he faces skepticism from more senior and establishment Republicans who are wary of his past as a Freedom Caucus founder. Some centrist Republicans are concerned that Jordan’s ultraconservative stances could jeopardize their already fragile majority in purple districts. If Jordan is unable to secure the 217 votes he needs in short order, it is widely expected that other candidates will step forward and formally declare to run. Potential candidates include House Majority Whip Tom Emmer of Minnesota and Oklahoma Rep. Kevin Hern, who is chair of the Republican Study Committee. 

Jordan’s main challenger, Scott, is also unlikely to be able to rally 217 votes behind him, but is considered the anti-Jordan candidate for more moderate Republicans. The dean of Georgia’s Republican delegation, Scott represents Georgia’s 8th District, which includes the central and southern parts of Georgia, and serves on three committees: Intelligence, Armed Services and Agriculture. He criticized the eight Republicans who voted with the chamber’s Democrats earlier this month to oust McCarthy. “There are people in there who like to go on the TV and are not necessarily negotiating for anything other than TV time,” he told CNN of the Republican conference. “It makes us look like a bunch of idiots.”

As Republicans search for a way out of the Speaker crisis, some lawmakers have openly discussed the possibility of granting Rep. Patrick McHenry, who has been serving as temporary Speaker, more authority to bring legislation to the House floor. Such a move would likely require a full House vote.

A Reuters journalist was killed Friday while reporting from southern Lebanon, and several others were injured, including two from the same news agency.

“We are deeply saddened to learn that our videographer, Issam Abdallah, has been killed,” a Reuters spokesperson told VOA on Friday. 

Abdallah was part of a Reuters crew in southern Lebanon who were providing a live signal at the time of the strike, the spokesperson said. 

The video has since been removed.

“We are urgently seeking more information, working with authorities in the region, and supporting Issam’s family and colleagues. Our thoughts are with his family at this terrible time,” the spokesperson said in the statement. 

Reuters journalists Thaer Al-Sudani and Maher Nazeh also were injured and are seeking medical care, the spokesperson added. 

The broadcaster Al Jazeera said that two of its journalists, Karmen Jokhadar and Eli Brakhia, were injured at the same time.

Details of the incident were not immediately clear.

The Israeli military has carried out strikes on its border with Lebanon in response to rocket and militant attacks.

The Reuters journalists are believed to have been hit by one such strike, according to Agence France-Presse and Al Jazeera. VOA could not immediately verify if that was the case.

The conflict playing out in a densely packed region has already led to media casualties.

At least seven other journalists have been killed while reporting from Gaza since Israel declared war on Hamas following the militant group’s bloody incursion into southern Israel last week, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said Friday the U.N. is concerned by reports of explosions in the U.N. Peacekeeping Mission area of South Lebanon and the “distressing reports” of a journalist being killed and others injured.

“Journalists need to be protected and allowed to do their work,” Dujarric said.

Chinese migrant workers in Israel were among those caught up in the middle of airstrikes launched by Hamas this week, even as Beijing has resisted condemning the militant group directly over the attacks.

Speaking with VOA’s Mandarin Service, the workers said they were relieved at seeing how the Israeli anti-missile system worked to intercept rockets from the Gaza Strip and hoped both parties could reach a cease-fire agreement soon.

One Chinese construction worker in Rishon LeZion in central Israel said the attacks this week by Hamas were the worst he had experienced during his 5-year stay there.

“Hamas came on the 7th [of Oct] after breaking through the Israeli border barriers,” said the construction worker, Liu, who refused give his full name. “Rockets have since been flown over above our heads. I’m terrified of being hit by falling rockets.”

Sirens sounded aloud within minutes of when Liu began to speak with VOA Mandarin, which he said were warnings of “the attack by two Hamas rockets.”

Liu said even with the warnings, he and more than 60 Chinese migrant workers, who are housed in an old village on the outskirts of the city, had little place to hide.

“The area we live in has nothing but very old civilian houses,” he said. “There are no air-raid shelters. We can only stay out in the open, observe the direction of flying rockets and look for cover. There’s not much we can do.”

Liu is from China’s Henan province, where his parents, wife and two children live on his salary from abroad.

He said he is concerned about the safety of other Chinese migrant workers in Israel. Many are construction workers who live in shabby steel houses.

Liu said he hopes both parties can reach a cease-fire soon, as they have done in the past so he can resume work, which pays twice as much as he could earn in China.

A Chinese migrant worker, who said his name is Li, told VOA Mandarin that the scale of this week’s Hamas strikes “is relatively big” compared to past conflicts, which he said he’s used to after having worked in Israel for two years.

But Li said his life in the city of Hod HaSharon, north of Tel Aviv, remains mostly unaffected. Li said he only hurried to hide in a shelter when nerve-wracking sirens warned of escalating airstrikes.

Beijing’s neutral stance

Unlike some Chinese netizens, who appear to sympathize with Palestinians, Li showed no hesitation in saying that the war was started by “terrorists from the other side” and it’s only reasonable that “Israel is not happy” and is “fighting back.”

But he said he agrees with Beijing’s decision to stay neutral and isn’t worried that anti-China sentiments could be sparked in Israel if Beijing refuses to criticize Hamas more directly.

“China is a superpower. Only small countries take sides,” Li said. “It’s not appropriate [for China] to express support for either Palestine or Israel. No one wants to go to war. Taking one’s side will invite resentments from the other side. People here are warm and friendly to the Chinese. It is a welcoming environment for the Chinese to work here.”

On Thursday, China’s foreign ministry said three Chinese nationals have been confirmed dead in the conflict. Two others are missing and several have been injured.

On Friday, Israel Defense Forces called on civilians to leave Gaza City “for their own safety and protection” as Israel ramps up preparations for a ground invasion of Gaza including the deployment of 300,000 reservists near the border.

The entire population of 1.1 million people in northern Gaza was urged to relocate to southern Gaza within 24 hours, according to a United Nations statement late Thursday.

China not a friend in need

Despite growing calls for China to condemn Hamas, Sam Chester, a high-tech company executive in northern Israel, said few in Israel expect support from the Chinese government as Beijing is known for decades to have maintained a policy of “friends with all” so that its commercial interests in the region can be advanced, which include access to Arab and Iranian energy reserves and Israeli advance technology.

But after this conflict, Israel may re-evaluate its ties with China, which has proved not to be “a friend in need,” said Chester, who previously worked as a China analyst in Israel.

“I do think Israel will ultimately use it as an experience to have a better sense of who their real allies are, and who may be an ally only when things are good. Hopefully, Beijing will choose the right sort of words and make the right sort of actions,” Chester told VOA Mandarin in a video interview.

Chester said China’s foray as a peacemaker in the region has been “generic and timid,” adding that China’s support in the form of “half-hearted press statements” is massively different from that of the U.S. or EU, which have committed resources to do so.

Chester said the Hamas attacks are considered by many across Israel as a new depth of horror that can only compare to what occurred in the Holocaust. Israeli society wants its army to respond with maximum force in Gaza to eliminate all Hamas and Islamic Jihad, he said. even though some recognize that any military solution may not bring long-term peace.

This article originated in VOA’s Mandarin Service.