RSS
‘Emotionally Drained’: Mix of Relief, Trepidation in Tel Aviv as First Three Hostages Released From Gaza

Tel Aviv’s Hostages Square on Jan. 19, 2025, as three Israeli hostages were set to be released from Hamas captivity as part of a Gaza ceasefire deal. Photo: Taken by author
A wave of relief and celebration swept through the crowd at Tel Aviv’s Hostages Square as three Israeli women were released after spending 471 days in Hamas captivity in Gaza.
The 2,000-strong crowd, composed of family members, friends, activists, and members of the general public, erupted into cheers and tears as live footage of the return of Emily Damari, Romi Gonen, and Doron Steinbrecher was broadcast.
The moment, though joyful, was mixed with pain for the ongoing torture for families of those still held captive as well as the terrible price Israel was forced to pay to free the hostages. After prolonged negotiations, Israel is set to release 1,700 terrorists — more than 1,000 of whom were arrested in Gaza after the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack, which saw 1,200 killed and 251 taken captive during the Palestinian terrorist group’s invasion of and rampage across southern Israel.
Sunday’s tranche, in which the three women were exchanged for 90 Palestinian security prisoners, is part of a 42-day ceasefire to halt fighting in Gaza in which 33 hostages are slated for release.
Israeli sources involved in the release process at Ofer Prison alleged that Red Cross representatives intentionally delayed the release of security prisoners. They claimed the postponement was aimed at ensuring the release occurred after the agreed-upon date, suggesting an effort to portray Israel in a negative light.
Onlookers at the square held up signs bearing the names and faces of those still missing, reminding the public that the crisis is far from over. Many in the crowd expressed mixed emotions — relief for the freed hostages but worry over the coming weeks and even years ahead.

Tel Aviv’s Hostages Square on Jan. 19, 2025, as three Israeli hostages were set to be released from Hamas captivity as part of a Gaza ceasefire deal. Photo: Taken by author
“I’m emotionally drained and it’s only been one day. How on earth are we going to keep this up for so long?” said Hani Nadav.
Footage of the three women being escorted by armed Hamas terrorists, their faces concealed by masks and Kalashnikov rifles in hand, stirred deep unease among viewers. The sight of roaring crowds in the background, celebrating the ceasefire, only intensified the emotional strain for those watching from afar.
“The most sickening part is we have to rely on Hamas — a bunch of rapist killers — to control those crowds because who knows what they would do to those women if they could get their hands on them?” said Nataly Spiro said. “It’s so messed up.”
Later in the evening, Hamas released a propaganda video showing its operatives giving the hostages “gift bags” prior to being released into the care of the Red Cross. The bags reportedly included photos of them in captivity, maps of Gaza, and a “release certificate.”
Clara Merman, who endured 53 days of captivity in Gaza alongside four members of her family before being released in November 2023, was also at Hostages Square. Merman shed light on the psychological tactics employed by Hamas during hostage releases, saying that the orchestrated nature of their actions was little more than a façade intended to project an image of control and benevolence.
“It was all for show, for the world to witness their apparent victory,” she said.
Merman recounted how, during their release, Hamas members assured them of protection amid chaotic crowds. “Hamas told us, ‘Don’t worry, we’re protecting you,’” she recounted.
According to Palestinian affairs analyst Khaled Abu Toameh, Hamas is leveraging the deal, which does not require it to relinquish control over the Gaza Strip, to reinstate its position as ruler over the coastal enclave in order to carry out further massacres against Israel in the future.
One man, Pinhas Cohen, said he was very opposed to the deal but nonetheless decided to come to Hostages Square — the de facto headquarters for activists who have been urging Israel to secure an agreement “at any cost” — because he felt he needed to be with “my Jewish brothers, even though I may disagree deeply with them.”
“Tonight, we celebrate. Seeing those three come back, it’s hard not to feel anything but complete joy. I hope that my fears about what will happen down the road will turn out to be completely unfounded,” Cohen said.

Tel Aviv’s Hostages Square on Jan. 19, 2025, as three Israeli hostages were set to be released from Hamas captivity as part of a Gaza ceasefire deal. Photo: Taken by author
The three women were transferred to Sheba Medical Center for evaluation, though hospital authorities said their initial assessment was positive. “Their condition allows us to concentrate on the important thing, which is reuniting with their families, and to postpone diving into medical issues for a few hours,” said Sheba Director Dr. Yael Frankel-Nir.
Footage emerging from the hospital showed the women hugging family members ecstatically. Damari was pictured with a bandaged hand with two remaining fingers. Her family said that her fingers had been shot off during the Oct. 7 attack.
The Steinbrecher family issued a statement after reuniting with their loved one.
“After an unbearable 471 days, our beloved Dodo has finally returned to our arms,” the Steinbrecher family said, referring to Doron by her nickname. The family went on to thank the people of Israel for endlessly fighting for Doron’s release, and extended thanks also to incoming US President Donald Trump “for his significant involvement and support, which meant so much to us.”
The post ‘Emotionally Drained’: Mix of Relief, Trepidation in Tel Aviv as First Three Hostages Released From Gaza first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Striking Hamas Leaders in Qatar Is 100% Legal Under International Law

Vehicles stop at a red traffic light, a day after an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Here are just a few of the absurd reactions from world leaders in the wake of Israel’s stunning strike on Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, last week:
- A “blatant violation of international law.”
- A “violation of sovereignty.”
- A “flagrant breach of international law.”
France, Spain, the UK, the Qataris themselves, and others have joined in the hysterics.
Yet all these sloganizing leaders have one thing in common: an astonishing and total ignorance of actual, international law.
In future articles, I will dive into the far reaching implications and consequences of this stunning operation, but for now, here’s a quick review of international law.
- Qatar is not technically at war with Israel, therefore the country could be considered a “neutral power” under the Hague Convention V and thus immune from attack.
- However, under articles 2, 3 and 4 of Hague Convention V, a “neutral power” may not allow anyone on its territory to direct combat operations, run command and control centers, or even to communicate electronically with combatants.
- For years, the Hamas leadership has been carrying out exactly those prohibited acts from within Qatar — with sustained and integral Qatari support. In other words, Qatar has been violating international law for years — before, during, and after the October 7 massacre.
- Hamas is the internationally-designated terror organization that carried out the October 7 massacre of Israelis in 2023, and continues holding Israeli hostages in Gaza to this day. Though the Hamas leadership in Qatar claims the moniker “political wing,” it is consistently involved in directing combat operations against Israel.
- Qatar cannot claim to be a “neutral power” under the Hague Conventions, because it provides sustained and integral support for Hamas — which aids Hamas combat operations against Israel — from Qatari soil.
- Furthermore, Israel has an inviolate right to self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and Hamas may not undermine that right simply by directing its combat operations from inside a third-party country.
In summary: Qatar has been providing sustained and integral support for Hamas combat operations — from Qatari soil — in violation of The Hague conventions.
These acts give Israel the inviolate right, under both the Hague Conventions and the UN Charter’s Article 51, to defend itself and its citizens by targeting Hamas leadership inside Qatar.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking. He has been a lawyer for more than 25 years.
RSS
No, Mahmoud Abbas Did Not Condemn Jerusalem Terror Attack

People inspect a bus with bullet holes at the scene where a shooting terrorist attack took place at the outskirts of Jerusalem, Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
Last week, terrorists opened fire in Jerusalem, murdering six and injuring 12 innocent Israelis.
Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas — the man the international community insists is a “peace partner” — then put out a statement that was labeled by much of the international media as a condemnation. In reality, it was anything but.
Abbas never once mentioned the terror attack. He never referred to the murders, never acknowledged the victims, and never expressed a word of sympathy for their families. His statement spoke in vague terms about rejecting “any targeting of Palestinian and Israeli civilians,” a formula carefully crafted to sound balanced while deliberately blurring the reality that it was Palestinians who carried out the terror attack, and Israelis who were its victims.
Worse still, 98% of Abbas’ statement was condemnation of Israel, the “occupation,” “genocide,” and “colonist terrorism.” Instead of using the attack to speak out against Palestinian terror, Abbas used it to criticize Israel without even actually mentioning the attack, and while portraying Palestinians as the victims.
Abbas’ remark is not a condemnation of terrorism. It is a cover-up. He is once again confirming the PA’s ideology that sees Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians as justified.
The emptiness of Abbas’s words becomes glaring when compared to the response of the United Arab Emirates.
The UAE condemned the “terrorist shooting incident … in the strongest terms,” offered condolences to the victims and their families, and wished a speedy recovery to the wounded.
The UAE’s statement was clear, moral, and human. Abbas’ was political and self-serving, designed to enable gullible Westerners to delude themselves that Abbas was actually condemning terrorism. The UAE and Abbas’ statements follow. The difference speaks volumes.
UAE condemnation of terror | Mahmoud Abbas’ sham |
“The United Arab Emirates has condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist shooting incident which occurred near Jerusalem, and resulted in a number of deaths and injuries.
In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) reaffirmed the UAE’s strong condemnation of these terrorist acts and its permanent rejection of all forms of violence and terrorism aimed at undermining security and stability. The Ministry expressed its sincere condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims, and to the State of Israel and its people, as well as its wishes for a speedy recovery for all the injured.” [United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs, website, September 8, 2025] |
“The Palestinian Presidency reiterated its firm stance rejecting and condemning any targeting of Palestinian and Israel civilians, and denouced all forms of violence and terrorism, regardless of their source.
The Presidency stressed that security and stability in the region cannot be achieved without ending the occupation, halting acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip, and stopping colonist terrorism across the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem. It emphasized the Palestinian people’s attainment of their legitimate rights to an independent and sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the achievement of security and peace for all, is what wil end the cycle of violence in the region. This came in the wake of today’s events in occupied Jerusalem.” [WAFA, official PA news agency, September 8, 2025] |
Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is the Founder and Director of PMW, where a version of this article first appeared.
RSS
Carrying Charlie Kirk’s Torch: Why the West Must Not Retreat

A memorial is held for Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed in Utah, at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, US, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin O’Hara
Charlie Kirk’s sudden death leaves more than grief; it leaves a void in a moment of profound civilizational danger. He was not just a political organizer or cultural commentator. He was a voice that gave the next generation permission to reject the lies of relativism, to reclaim confidence in the West, and to stand against the forces — both ideological and violent — that seek to dismantle it. To honor his life means refusing to let that mission fade.
Kirk understood that the greatest threats to freedom were not hidden in obscure policy debates, but in the cultural and spiritual health of the West. He saw that when a society abandons faith, mocks tradition, and treats national identity as a shameful relic, it becomes easy prey for movements that thrive on weakness and self-doubt. His genius was to frame this not as nostalgia, but as survival.
For him, defending family, faith, and moral order was not a luxury — it was the only path by which free societies could endure.
One challenge Kirk named very clearly was the rise of radical Islamism and terrorism. He warned that this was not merely a foreign problem, but an internal one. Radical ideologies, cloaked in the language of grievance, have found fertile ground in Western cities, universities, and political discourse. Under the cover of tolerance, they have grown bolder. Under the silence of elites, they have become entrenched. Kirk refused to bend to the false equivalence that excuses extremism as cultural difference. He understood that those who despise freedom should not be empowered to weaponize it.
His critics often called him polarizing, but what they truly feared was his clarity. He reminded audiences that not all values are equal, not all ideas are harmless, and not every ideology deserves space in a free society. In a climate where cowardice is praised as moderation, his directness was seen as dangerous. But the true danger lies in the refusal to speak plainly about the threats that face us. Civilizations do not collapse overnight; they are eroded when their defenders lose the courage to distinguish between what is worth preserving and what must be rejected.
Kirk never lost that courage. He confronted progressive elites who undermined confidence in the West from within, and he confronted radical Islamist sympathizers who justified violence against it from without. He saw that both positions, though different in form, worked toward the same end: a weakening of Western resolve, an erosion of shared identity, and the creation of a generation uncertain of its own inheritance. His refusal to allow that message to go unchallenged gave hope to millions of young people who might otherwise have drifted into cynicism or despair.
Now his death presents a stark choice. The forces he warned against are not pausing to mourn. They are pressing forward, eager to fill the space that was already under siege. If his legacy is not actively continued, it will not simply fade — it will be replaced by movements hostile to everything he fought to defend. To preserve his mission, the West must double down on the truths he carried: that strength is not arrogance, that tradition is not oppression, and that freedom without moral order is an illusion that collapses into chaos.
The stakes are high. If these principles are allowed to wither, we risk a generation unmoored from history, unprepared for the battles ahead, and unwilling to confront the ideological threats at our doorstep. But if Kirk’s legacy is embraced and advanced, his death will be the beginning of a renewal.
The West cannot retreat. It cannot afford the luxury of silence or the temptation of compromise with those who seek its undoing. The path forward requires the clarity and courage that Charlie Kirk embodied. To carry his torch is not simply to honor his memory. It is to safeguard the survival of the civilization he loved and defended. The question is not whether we should continue his work. The question is whether we can endure if we do not.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx