Hamas and its affiliates, along with other hacktivist groups, have conducted numerous cyber operations against Israeli targets.

Southeast Asian nations’ responses to the ongoing violent conflict between Israel and Hamas are influenced by historical, domestic, demographic and strategic factors.

The Israel-Hamas clash diminishes prospects for the revival of the peace process and strengthens Hamas’ position as the preeminent Palestinian faction.

Both sides appear to have wisely avoided a gruelling battle of attrition by opting for a tactical truce - not seemingly on account of a preference for peace but because of a pragmatic recognition of the futility of further conflict.

As the new government headed by Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu takes charge in Jerusalem, it seems that there are no easy solutions to what Israel perceives to be its central strategic question – how to effectively stop the Iranian nuclear quest. Israel’s leaders across the political spectrum have long maintained that a nuclear capable Iran, coupled with the rhetoric against Israel emanating from Tehran and its help to groups like the Hezbollah and the Hamas, constitutes an existential threat.

A fundamental principle of humanitarian law, non-combatant immunity, has been virtually consigned to history during the Bush years. To a large extent this can be considered a ‘success’ for terrorists. That terrorists do not respect the principle of non-combatant immunity is central to the definition of terrorism. The aim of terrorists is substantially achieved when states also adopt their language and grammar. This has been done to an extent by the US in its militarily aggressive response to 9/11 in Iraq and Afghanistan.