Hamas also in Syria, new line on attacks on Israel in secret meeting

And the’Expanding attacks against Israel from Syria. This is what was decided A secret meeting between Hamas leadersThen Saleh al-Arouri and Khaled Meshal, Which happened last week in Türkiye. This was reported by the website of the Israeli Kan channel, citing Palestinian sources familiar with the details of the meeting.

The broadcaster confirms this Hamas can rely on a military branch not only in Lebanon, but also in Syria. The latter will consist of dozens of militiamen, most of whom will be stationed in refugee camps around Damascus, but also in the south of the country, in the Quneitra and Daraa regions.

After an indiscretion he had last night Four missiles were launched from Syria towards the Golan HeightsThe Ynet website reported that one of them fell in an uninhabited area and three fell in Syrian territory. The IDF responded by firing at the source of the attacks.

Discovering the largest Hamas tunnel

Meanwhile, what is considered the largest Hamas tunnel was discovered near the Erez crossing between Israel and Gaza. This was announced by the Israeli army, under which the underground tunnel system extends for 4 kilometers, with an entrance just 400 meters from the Erez crossing, which Gazans use daily to enter Israel for work or medical treatment. The system was designed by Muhammad al-Sinwar, brother of Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, Yahya al-Sinwar, and commander of the Khan Yunis Brigade.

Postponing the vote on the United Nations ceasefire resolution

Consequently, a vote in the United Nations Security Council on the resolution drafted by the United Arab Emirates for a ceasefire and the entry of aid into the Gaza Strip was postponed. The Guardian newspaper reported this, explaining that the postponement is related to the need to reformulate the text of the draft to respond to the objections of the United States and avoid using a new veto. The vote was expected to take place in the next few hours, but the United States announced that it could not support the indication of a cessation of hostilities, while it could accept a suspension of hostilities.