US President Donald Trump insisted that America will “take” Gaza and that other countries in the Middle East will absorb the Palestinians currently residing in the enclave while meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan in the White House on Tuesday.

“There’s nothing to buy. We will have Gaza. No reason to buy. There is nothing to buy,” Trump said.

The president suggested that the damage incurred by the ongoing Israel-Hamas war has corroded Gaza’s value and that the United States will simply seize the enclave. However, he did not detail how he plans to facilitate or finance the reconstruction of Gaza. 

“It’s Gaza. It’s a war-torn area. We’re going to take it. We’re going to hold it. We’re going to cherish it,” Trump added.

Nonetheless, the president vowed that the US will energize Gaza’s economy and turn the territory into a “diamond” and “tremendous asset” for the Middle East. Trump maintained that Gaza possesses the potential to become a “great economic development” for the region, touting its scenic location on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. 

However, the president lamented that seemingly “every 10 years” Gaza erupts into explosive warfare, resulting in “death and destruction” for its civilians. 

Trump added that he believes “99 percent” that the United States could strike an agreement with Egypt to relocate the residents of Gaza, where the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas ruled before the war and remains the strongest faction.

When asked what he thought of Trump’s ambitions to transfer Palestinian civilians to Egypt, Abdullah revealed that Egypt and other Arab countries are planning to meet in Saudi Arabia to discuss the future of Gaza. Abdullah refused to speak extensively about Trump’s stated goal of removing Palestinians from Gaza, advising reporters to “not get ahead of ourselves” and wait for Arab countries to deliberate about the matter. 

“It’s hard to make this work in a way that’s good for everybody,” Abdullah said. 

Though the Jordanian king would not commit to taking in large numbers of Palestinians, he said Jordan would be willing to “take 2,000 children that are cancer children or are in [a] very ill state” while Arab countries “wait for the Egyptians to present their plan on how we can work with the president to work on Gaza challenges.”

During Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House last week, Trump called on Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab states in the region to take in Palestinians from Gaza after nearly 16 months of war between Israel and the Hamas. Arab leaders have adamantly rejected Trump’s proposal. 

Last week, the US president expressed similar sentiments as he did on Tuesday, saying that the US would “take over” the Gaza Strip to build the war-torn Palestinian enclave back up. However, many members of the US Congress across both parties pushed back on Trump’s declaration, accusing him of endangering American troops, destabilizing the Middle East, and floating an ethnic cleansing campaign in Gaza. Trump has also stated that Palestinians would not have the “right to return” to Gaza after being relocated and said no US troops would be needed for his plan without elaborating.

Following his meeting with Trump, Abdullah took to social media to call for a permanent end to the war in Gaza and the creation of a Palestinian state. 

“This is the unified Arab position. Rebuilding Gaza without displacing the Palestinians and addressing the dire humanitarian situation should be the priority for all,” he wrote on X/Twitter. 

“Achieving just peace on the basis of the two-state solution is the way to ensure regional stability. This requires US leadership. President Trump is a man of peace. He was instrumental in securing the Gaza ceasefire. We look to US and all stakeholders in ensuring it holds,” the Jordanian king added.

The post Trump Insists US Will ‘Take’ Gaza, Jordan’s King Stays Mum on Palestinian Relocation During White House Visit first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Hamas has rebuffed US President Donald Trump’s warning that he’ll “let hell break out” if the Palestinian terrorist group does not release all the Israeli hostages still being held in Gaza, saying that the American leader’s threats are “worthless and only complicate matters.”

“Trump must remember that there is an agreement that must be respected by both parties, and this is the only way to get the prisoners back,” Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhr told multiple press agencies, referring to the Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal between the terrorist group and Israel. “The language of threats is worthless and only complicates matters.”

On Monday, Trump advised Israel to cancel the ceasefire and said he would “let hell break out” if Hamas refused to release the remaining hostages. Trump’s comments echoed statements made by his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, last month that the White House would support Israel resuming the war in Gaza if Hamas violated the ceasefire agreement.

“As far as I’m concerned, if all of the hostages aren’t returned by Saturday at 12 o’clock … I would say, cancel it [the hostage deal] and all bets are off and let hell break out,” Trump told reporters on Monday. “I’d say they ought to be returned by 12 o’clock on Saturday, and if they’re not returned — all of them — not in dribs and drabs, not two and one and three and four and two — Saturday at 12 o’clock. And after that, I would say, all hell is going to break out.”

Trump cautioned that Israel might want to override him on the issue and said he might speak to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Trump’s comments came after Hamas announced on Monday that it would stop releasing Israeli hostages until further notice over alleged violations of the ceasefire deal. Hamas spokesperson Abu Obeida claimed that Israel has prevented Palestinians from returning to northern Gaza, conducted strikes throughout the Gaza Strip, and impeded the delivery of humanitarian goods. 

“The resistance leadership has closely monitored the enemy’s violations and its failure to uphold the terms of the agreement,” Obeida said.

The Israel Defense Forces has insisted that its strikes were conducted for defensive purposes, saying that its soldiers have “operated to distance suspects who posed a threat to them in different areas of the Gaza Strip.”

“The IDF is committed to fully implementing the conditions of the agreement for the return of the hostages,” the military wrote in a statement, adding that their forces are “prepared for any scenario and will continue to take any necessary actions to thwart immediate threat to IDF soldiers.”

Meanwhile, Israel said last week that 12,600 trucks of aid had arrived in Gaza since the beginning of the deal on Jan. 19.

Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists started the war in Gaza when they murdered 1,200 people and kidnapped 251 hostages during their invasion of southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in the neighboring enclave. The conflict raged for nearly 16 months until both sides agreed to last month’s ceasefire and hostage-release deal, the first phase of which is set to last six weeks.

Under phase one, Hamas agreed to free a total of 33 Israeli hostages, eight of whom are deceased, and in exchange, Israel would release over 1,900 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom are serving multiple life sentences for terrorist activity. Meanwhile, fighting in Gaza will stop as negotiators work on agreeing to a second phase of the agreement, which is expected to include Hamas releasing all remaining hostages held in Gaza and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the enclave.

So far, 16 of the 33 hostages in Gaza have been released within the first phase of the ceasefire.

The three latest hostages were released on Saturday. Their strikingly thin and emaciated bodies sparked international outrage about Hamas’s treatment of the hostages, with Trump comparing the captives to Holocaust survivors.

The details of the second phase of the ceasefire are still being negotiated. However, Israel has reportedly presented the White House with a plan to advance the truce with Hamas.

The post Hamas Rebuffs Trump’s ‘Worthless’ Call for Israel to Resume War if Terror Group Refuses to Release Hostages first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

A recent analysis by a Yale professor claimed The New York Times‘ coverage of the Gaza conflict downplayed Israeli losses after the Hamas terror group’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of the Jewish state and minimized the role of Palestinian violence in sustaining the war.

The findings have added fuel to ongoing debates about media bias in reporting on the war, with one prominent critic of the Times arguing that they fit with not only a long-standing pattern of portraying Israel as a belligerent aggressor but also a deep hostility toward the Jewish state among the newspaper’s top leadership.

The study — published last month and conducted by Edieal Pinker, a professor and deputy dean at the Yale School of Management — examined 1,561 articles published by the Times between Oct. 7, 2023, and June 7, 2024. It concluded that the newspaper’s reporting adhered to a “specific narrative” in which Israel was largely portrayed as the primary aggressor while Palestinian suffering received dominant coverage.

“The net result of these imbalances and others is to create a depiction of events that is imbalanced toward creating sympathy for the Palestinian side, places most of the agency in the hands of Israel, is often at odds with actual events, and fails to give readers an understanding of how Israelis are experiencing the war,” Pinker said.

A Question of Emphasis

The study found that The New York Times devoted extensive coverage to Israeli actions in Gaza and their impact on Palestinian civilians, while making significantly fewer references to Israeli casualties, Hamas combatant losses, and Palestinian violence after Oct. 7. According to the data, 70 percent of articles that described the conflict fit this dominant narrative. Nearly half of these did not mention Israeli hostages held in Gaza, and 41 percent omitted any reference to the Israeli casualties from Hamas’s initial attack.

By contrast, Pinker’s analysis found that 1,423 of the 1,561 articles surveyed made no mention of Israeli casualties incurred after the initial Oct. 7 assault — in which Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 people and kidnapped 251 hostages across southern Israel — nor of Hamas fighter deaths. The study cited data from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data research group indicating that, during the study’s timeframe, Israel lost 364 soldiers, 34 civilians, and suffered hundreds of attacks in Israel and the West Bank during the ensuing war.

In addition, the Times published personal stories of Palestinian or Lebanese suffering nearly every other day, while there were far longer periods in which post-Oct. 7 Israeli casualties were not mentioned at all, according to the study.

The coverage also appeared to minimize Hamas’s role in perpetuating the war, the study claimed. Only 10 percent of articles directly related to the fighting acknowledged Hamas combatant deaths, and 18 percent of war-related articles mentioned Palestinian violence post-Oct. 7. By comparison, Israel was mentioned more than three times as often as Hamas across all articles focused on the war.

A Longstanding Narrative

Author and media critic Ashley Rindsberg, who has written extensively about The New York Times in his book The Gray Lady Winked, argued that the study’s findings are consistent with the newspaper’s historical coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“The findings of the Yale study show that The New York Times is framing the current conflict in a way that’s very similar and almost a template to how it’s framed the Israel-Palestine conflict going back to the Second Intifada,” Rindsberg told The Algemeiner. “It was during the Intifada that The New York Times first created this narrative whereby Israel is almost always the sole aggressor and Palestinians are perpetual victims. Very rarely does the paper attempt to break this narrative and even suppresses facts or data that dissent from it.”

Rindsberg further argued that the Sulzberger family, which has controlled the newspaper for over a century, plays a role in shaping its editorial stance. “The Times holds onto this narrative at all costs,” he explained. “The Sulzbergers are almost genetically opposed to the concept of Judaism that underlies the state of Israel, which is an ethnic and national conception of the Jewish people, not just a religious faith. For them, Israel completely disrupts their worldview, and the result is a culture at the newspaper that supports this kind of narrative.”

The Challenge of Bias Measurement

Pinker, a dual US-Israeli citizen with a background in data analysis, emphasized that his research does not attempt to prove bias in the The New York Times‘ reporting, noting that bias is difficult to quantify statistically and would require analyzing journalistic intent.

Instead, the study aimed to assess whether imbalances in coverage could shape public perceptions in a way that diverges from the broader reality of the war. One potential contributing factor, the study noted, is the vastly different levels of press access between Israel and Gaza. Israel generally allows journalists to operate freely, whereas Hamas tightly controls reporting inside the enclave. This disparity could create unintentional biases, the study suggested.

It also did not examine the impact of other editorial decisions that could influence coverage, such as photo selection, headline framing, or the tone of opinion pieces.

New York Times Responds

The New York Times, which has frequently faced criticism from both supporters and opponents of Israel over its coverage, defended its reporting. In a statement responding to the study, a spokesperson said the newspaper had published over 13,000 articles, photos, and videos providing “rich context, confronting truths, and horrific human stories” about the war.

“The New York Times has covered this war with more rigor than virtually any other US news organization, reporting on the conflict from all angles,” the spokesperson said. They pointed to the paper’s investigations into Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities, as well as its extensive reporting on Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

“Our editors make careful and deliberate choices about every story we publish to ensure our language, framing, prominence, and tone remain true to our mission of independent journalism,” the statement continued. “We remain open to good-faith disagreement but will not change our coverage to buttress entrenched perspectives. Our commitment is to independent reporting that our readers can trust.”

In January, former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken commented on the lack of coverage of Hamas’s role in the war, calling it “astounding” in an interview with the Times.

“You hear virtually nothing from anyone since Oct. 7 about Hamas,” Blinken said at the time. “Why there hasn’t been a unanimous chorus around the world for Hamas to put down its weapons, to give up the hostages, to surrender?”

The post Yale Professor Exposes New York Times’ Systematic Minimization of Hamas, Palestinian Violence in Gaza War first appeared on Algemeiner.com.