would have overall security responsibility in gaza for an indefinite period , once the war ends. washington says it opposes what it calls a reoccupation of gaza by israel, and that the territory must remain palestinian land. here s what both parties had to say on the matter. we see what happens when we don t have that security, what we see is a eruption of hamas on a scale that we haven t seen before. the president maintains his position, that a re occupation by israeli forces is not the right thing to do. we ll let them speak to their intentions but we are definitely having conversations about what the post conflict environment ought to look like, and what governance in gaza will look like. one thing there is absolutely no daylight on is hamas cannot be part of that equation. in gaza itself, the israeli defence minister says his troops have now battled their way into gaza city, thought to be the stronghold of hamas designated by several western countries as a terrorist
prevail in this military face of this, experts say could take up to a year. the former minister made that pointjust in the last 2a hours. so the idea that they will get to a kind of stable occupation status where they can patrol and secure security without risk to themselves is probably a long way off and possibly a mirage entirely. so who are the leaders, possibly a mirage entirely. so who are the leaders, who possibly a mirage entirely. so who are the leaders, who are - possibly a mirage entirely. so who are the leaders, who are the - possibly a mirage entirely. so who l are the leaders, who are the players who can come in to try at some point whenever that may be, to broker some kind of framework for negotiations? at the moment all sides have got the leadership that they do not deserve. hamas are horrific but the trouble is that rivals the palestinian authority who rule in west bank are geriatric, out of touch, cynical and have done very little for their people. on the