Connect with us

RSS

Israel Said to Clear Final Obstacles to Gaza Ceasefire Deal as Hostage Families Remain in Turmoil

Orthodox Jewish men stand near a tank, ahead of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, as seen from the Israeli side of the border with Gaza, Jan. 16, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen

The last obstacles to a Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal had been ironed out, and Israel’s security cabinet was set to approve it on Friday, Israeli officials said on Thursday evening.

The news came after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delayed the agreement earlier in the day, accusing the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas of reneging on previously agreed-upon terms.

A US source, cited by Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, also confirmed that the differences had been resolved. Meanwhile, a senior US official vowed the deal would proceed by Sunday — a day ahead of US President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration.

Although Qatari and American mediators announced on Wednesday that the deal had been finalized, Israeli officials refused to issue a confirmation, and on Thursday said last-minute obstacles had emerged.

The sticking points center on the list of Palestinian prisoners who have been detained in Israel largely for involvement in terrorist activities to be released in exchange for the hostages who remain in captivity in Gaza after being kidnapped during Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

Hamas had attempted to overturn a key clause in the agreement that grants Israel veto power over the release of high-profile inmates who are considered “symbols of terrorism,” a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office said. Israel has also accused Hamas of “demanding to dictate the identity of these murderers,” in direct contradiction to the previously agreed-upon terms.

According to Israeli Channel 12 journalist Chaim Levinson, Hamas is insisting on the release of Hassan Salameh, the mastermind of the Bus 18 suicide bombings in Jerusalem in the 1990s, in which 46 Israelis were killed.

Additional disagreements reportedly involve logistical issues, such as control over the Philadelphia Corridor along the Gaza-Egypt border.

The strategic border strip has been a significant point of contention in the ceasefire and hostage-release discussions. Israel has insisted on maintaining a military presence in the corridor to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza, citing several dozen tunnels unearthed there. Officials on Thursday denied that Israel had agreed to withdraw its forces from it as part of the deal.

But Aryeh Deri — a member of Israel’s parliament, known as the Knesset, where he serves as the head of the Shas party that is part of Netanyahu’s ruling coalition — said on Thursday that he had received a “final announcement that all obstacles have been overcome and the deal is underway.”

“I want to congratulate Prime Minister Netanyahu — as he is responsible for the agreement,” he told his party.

Despite the lingering challenges earlier in the day, White House national security spokesperson John Kirby expressed confidence that the deal would proceed on Sunday.

“We’re aware of these issues that the prime minister has raised today, this afternoon, their time, and we’re working through that. Our team on the ground is actually working with him and his team to iron all this out and flatten it and get it moving forward,” Kirby told NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

For families of the hostages, the delay has exacerbated an already unbearable wait.

“These truly are probably the most stressful days we’ve experienced in over a year since the last deal,” said Udi Goren, whose cousin Tal Haimi’s body remains in Hamas custody. Haimi was killed on Oct. 7, 2023, along with more than 1,200 others when Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists invaded southern Israel. His body was taken to Gaza. His wife, Ella Haimi, gave birth to the couple’s fourth child in May.

“For us, we have seen so many disappointments over these past 15 months. You know, if this saying were ever true — ‘I’ll believe it when I see it.’”

Emotions have run high, especially among bereaved families whose loved ones were killed by terrorists, many of whom oppose the deal, fearing it will lead to further terrorism down the line. Protests by those opposing the deal took place on Wednesday and Thursday evening in Jerusalem.

Israel Hayom journalist Ariel Kahana sharply criticized the role of Trump in pressuring Israel to finalize the emerging hostage deal, arguing it was pushed through prematurely. According to Kahana, senior Israeli officials believe Trump’s insistence on securing the agreement before his inauguration forced Netanyahu into accepting unfavorable terms. Describing it as “a bad deal, struck at the wrong time and under poor conditions,” Kahane claimed that waiting just a few more days could have allowed Israel to negotiate significantly better conditions.

“The deal, which is expected to take effect any moment now, will rehabilitate Hamas,” he argued. “The organization, which has suffered severe blows, will gain at least 1,000 new operatives directly from Israeli prisons. This influx of ‘new blood,’ quite literally, will undoubtedly lead to more bloodshed both within and outside Israel.”

“Why is the author of The Art of the Deal pushing Israel into a deal with the devil?” the journalist added, using the title of Trump’s popular 1987 book.

Goren called the agreement a “really bad deal.”

Nevertheless, he said it was a moral imperative to release the hostages now because that was the most pressing issue. “This is the consequence of Oct 7. I don’t want to say this is too high a price. This is the reality. The hostages will never, never come back by military force,” he said.

“Do I like it? No. They are insane jihadist terrorists,” Goren added.

Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists abducted 251 hostages during their rampage across Israel, which responded to the invasion with a military campaign aimed at freeing the captives and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.

More than 100 hostages were released as part of a temporary truce in November 2023, and others have been freed — both dead and alive — by Israeli rescue operations. Some 98 hostages are still in captivity, and at least a third of them are believed to be dead.

Addressing the families of terror victims opposed to the agreement, Goren acknowledged their concerns. “We’ve seen terrorists go back to terror. But does Israel have the ability and also the responsibility to track them after their release? Absolutely.”

He also addressed the families of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers killed in the war who claim that their loved ones’ deaths were in vain if it would lead to the release of terrorists. Arguing that their sacrifice strengthened Israel’s negotiating position, Goren said, “The achievements in Gaza have allowed us to negotiate from a position of strength, ensuring Hamas no longer poses an existential threat to Israel.”

The post Israel Said to Clear Final Obstacles to Gaza Ceasefire Deal as Hostage Families Remain in Turmoil first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

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

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News