RSS
Israel’s Hostage Deal Is a Tragic and Historic Mistake
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 Gaza hostage-ceasefire deal is a massive and crippling defeat for Israel. There is no other way to frame it.
After 15 months of fighting, the best deal Israel could secure was releasing 57 Palestinian criminals and murderers for every Israeli hostage.
Judging from a partial list of those being released, it seems very likely that far more than 98 Israelis will die as a result of this deal.
It is also clear that Israel has failed in its war aims to eradicate Hamas from Gaza and replace it with a new government. The war didn’t establish a deterrent to future terrorism; in fact, this hostage deal will likely *increase* the risk of terrorism, especially hostage-taking.
As Palestinian Media Watch has pointed out, the seeds of the October 7 massacre were planted in 2011, when Israel exchanged 1,027 Palestinian terrorists and murderers for one living Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit.
The terrorists released in 2011 went on to kill or aid in the murder of more than a thousand Israelis, and planned the October 7 massacre itself. (Yahya Sinwar was one of those released in 2011; similarly, many terrorist leaders and masterminds are being released this time).
The Gilad Shalit deal taught the Palestinian people one critical lesson: kidnapping Israelis works.
Now, once again, Palestinians are seeing the fruits of their labors with the absurd release of 1,900 Palestinian terrorists and prisoners for 33 Israelis (who aren’t even all alive).
Of course, we all want to see the 98 Israeli hostages come home — but the definition of insanity is to repeat the same policy and expect a different result; yet, that’s exactly what Israel has done.
It seems mind-boggling that Israel could not extract a better terrorist-to-hostage ratio than 57:1 after 15 months of fighting in Gaza.
Even a 5-to-1 ratio would have seemed reasonable. Yet Hamas got 11 times that, which suggests that — contrary to the claims of the Israeli government — Hamas’ capabilities have not been degraded. If Hamas had been truly weakened, Israel could have secured a much better deal.
Between future kidnapping attempts — and acts of terrorism that will be committed by the thousands of murderers and terrorists being released — it’s virtually guaranteed that far more than 98 Israelis will die in the future because of this deal. (And remember, at least 34 of those Israeli hostages are already dead).
Israel’s ethos of bringing all its people home is a beautiful one; but beauty isn’t always the answer in the face of a barbaric, unrelenting, and sadistic enemy that is determined to murder every Jew in Israel.
Perhaps one could argue that Israel owes these 98 people a special duty, since the country failed them spectacularly on October 7. But doesn’t the Israeli government owe the guarantee of life and safety to nine million people in Israel?
Israel’s government had the obligation to choose the outcome that saved the most lives. But years from now, it will become very clear that this deal took more lives than it saved.
So many innocent children, women, and men will be lost — but it seems less tragic, because we can’t see their faces yet.
If Israel really wanted to bring those hostages home at any cost, it should have prosecuted the war in a completely different way (to achieve a better hostage deal or an actual victory) — and it should be treating Palestinian terrorists and murderers in a completely different way than we are now.
Some have suggested that Phase 1 of the deal is just a ploy to get some hostages back — and that once it’s completed, Israel will continue its war in Gaza apace. That seems unlikely given the exhaustion of Israel’s military, the international pressure that will be mounted against it, and various other factors. And even if that does happen — we still will have released hundreds of murderers and terrorist masterminds; Israeli soldiers will be at much greater risk than they were before; and it’s hard to believe Israel can accomplish what it hasn’t in 15 months absent a severe change of strategy, or more troops and resources.
Others have blamed this hostage deal on the United States — yet Prime Minister Netanyahu showed that he was able to resist pressure from the Biden administration at almost every turn. Either Trump is not the loyal friend of Israel he claims to be, or Netanyahu chose not to expend his political capital to fight for a better outcome. If nothing else, the deal sheds light on Netanyahu’s weakness, and Trump’s interest in being a “dealmaker” rather than the loyal advocate of Israel that many had hoped for.
Overall, this deal signals one thing: Israel’s weakness, both geostrategically, and among its political leadership.
More terror will result from this deal — and we can only hope that it’s not worse than October 7, 2023.
We must also hope that Israel finally finds competent leadership that avoids the extremes of the far-right and far-left, but acts with common sense — and the best interest of all nine million Israeli citizens — as its guiding policy.
The author is a political commentator and political analyst.
The post Israel’s Hostage Deal Is a Tragic and Historic Mistake first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
South Africa Distances Itself From Army Chief’s Pledges of Military, Political Support to Iran
Iranian Major General Amir Hatami and South African General Rudzani Maphwanya meet in Tehran to discuss strengthening military cooperation and strategic ties. Photo: Screenshot
South Africa’s army chief has faced domestic backlash after pledging military and political support to Iran during a recent visit, prompting government officials to distance themselves from his remarks over concerns they could harm Pretoria’s efforts to strengthen ties with the United States.
Members of South Africa’s governing coalition have denounced Gen. Rudzani Maphwanya, chief of the South African National Defense Force (SANDF), for his trip to Tehran earlier this week, describing his remarks as “reckless grandstanding.”
The Democratic Alliance (DA), South Africa’s second-largest party in the governing coalition, has called for Maphwanya to be court-martialed for breaking neutrality and violating military law, saying his comments had gone “beyond military-to-military discussions and entered the realm of foreign policy.”
“This reckless grandstanding comes at a time when South Africa’s relations with key democratic partners, especially the United States, are already under severe strain,” DA defense spokesperson Chris Hattingh said in a statement.
“The SANDF’s job is to lead and manage the defense forces, not to act as an unsanctioned political envoy. Allowing our most senior military officer to make partisan foreign policy pronouncements is strategically reckless, diplomatically irresponsible, and economically self-defeating,” he continued.
“South Africa cannot afford to have its international standing further sabotaged by political adventurism from the military’s top brass,” Hattingh said.
Iran and South Africa held high-level military talks earlier this week as both nations seek to deepen cooperation and strengthen their partnership against what officials called “global arrogance and aggressive colonial approaches.”
During a joint press conference with Iranian Maj. Gen. Amir Hatami, Maphwanya called for deeper ties between the two nations, especially in defense cooperation, affirming that “the Republic of South Africa and the Islamic Republic of Iran have common goals.”
“We always stand alongside the oppressed and defenseless people of the world,” the South African general said.
He also criticized Israel over the ongoing war in Gaza, expressed support for the Palestinian people, and told Iranian officials that his visit “conveys a political message” on behalf of President Cyril Ramaphosa’s administration.
However, shortly after Maphwanya’s remarks drew media attention, the South African government moved to distance itself from his comments, with the Foreign Affairs Ministry stating that his comments “do not represent the government’s official foreign policy stance.”
The Defense Department, which described Maphwanya’s comments as “unfortunate,” confirmed that he is now expected to meet with the Minister of Defense and Military Veterans, Angie Motshekga, upon his return to provide explanations.
Ramaphosa’s spokesperson, Vincent Magwenya, clarified that the president was neither aware of the trip nor had he sanctioned it.
“The visit was ill-advised and more so, the expectation is that the general should have been a lot more circumspect with the comments he makes,” Magwenya told reporters during a press conference on Thursday.
“It is crucial to clarify that the implementation of South Africa’s foreign policy is a function of the presidency,” he continued. “Any statements made by an individual, or a department other than those responsible for foreign policy, should not be misinterpreted as the official position of the South African government.”
Maphwanya’s trip to Iran came after the Middle East Africa Research Institute (MEARI) released a recent report detailing how South Africa’s deepening ties with Tehran have led the country to compromise its democratic foundations and constitutional principles by aligning itself with a regime internationally condemned for terrorism, repression, and human rights abuses.
RSS
Democrat Pete Buttigieg Toughens Stance on Israel, Says He Backs Arms Embargo Following Left-Wing Pressure
Former US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg speaks during an appearance on the “Pod Save America” podcast on Aug. 10, 2025. Photo: Screenshot
Former US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, a Democrat considered by many observers to be a potential 2028 presidential candidate, has recalibrated his stance on Israel, moving from cautious language to a far more critical position after facing backlash over recent comments on the popular “Pod Save America” podcast.
In his podcast interview on Sunday, Buttigieg called Israel “a friend” and said the United States should “put your arm around” the country during difficult times. He also sidestepped a direct answer on whether the US should recognize a Palestinian state, describing the question as “profound” but offering little elaboration beyond calls for peace.
That measured approach drew sharp criticism from progressives and foreign policy voices who argued that his words were too vague amid the ongoing war in Gaza and a shifting sentiment within the Democratic party base regarding Israel. Evolving fault lines within the Democratic Party over US policy toward its staunch Middle Eastern ally signal that the issue could loom large in the 2028 presidential primary.
Following Sunday’s interview, US Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) urged Buttigieg to show “moral clarity,” while Ben Rhodes, former White House aide to President Barack Obama, said he was left uncertain where the Cabinet official stood. Social media critics accused Buttigieg of offering platitudes that dodged hard policy commitments.
In a follow-up interview with Politico published on Thursday, Buttigieg took a decidedly tougher line. He said he supports recognizing a Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution and ending the decades-long practice of providing military aid to the Jewish state through sweeping, multi-year packages. Instead, he called for a case-by-case review of assistance, while emphasizing the need to stop civilian deaths, release hostages, and ensure unimpeded humanitarian aid to Gaza.
Perhaps most significantly, Buttigieg indicated support for a US arms embargo on Israel, saying he would have signed on to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s recently proposed resolution to prohibit arms sales to the Jewish state.
The shift places Buttigieg closer to the party’s progressive flank on foreign policy, a notable change for a figure often viewed as a bridge between the Democratic establishment and younger, more liberal voters. For a likely 2028 contender, the move reflects both the political risks of appearing out of step with an increasingly skeptical base and the growing influence of voices calling for sharper limits on US support for Israel.
Recent polling shows a generational divide on the issue, with younger Democrats far more likely to back conditioning aid to Israel and recognizing Palestinian statehood.
RSS
Former Algemeiner Correspondent Gidon Ben-Zvi Dies at 51
Gidon Ben-Zvi. Photo: Screenshot
Gidon Ben-Zvi, former Jerusalem Correspondent for The Algemeiner, has died at the age of 51 after a fight with cancer.
Ben-Zvi continued to write op-eds for The Algemeiner even after he left as a correspondent, including in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.
An accomplished writer, Ben-Zvi left Hollywood for Jerusalem in 2009, moving back to Israel after spending 12 years in the United States. From 1994-1997, Gidon served in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), in an infantry unit.
In addition to writing for The Algemeiner, Ben-Zvi contributed to the Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post, CiF Watch, and blogged at Jerusalem State of Mind.
Ben-Zvi joined HonestReporting as a senior editor in June 2020, becoming an integral part of the editorial department and writing dozens of articles and media critiques for the watchdog group exposing anti-Israel bias. He moved with his family to Haifa at the end of 2022.
Ben-Zvi’s final article for HonestReporting was published in January 2025, before he took a leave of absence for health reasons. HonestReporting said in a newly published obituary that staff believed he would eventually return, noting the positivity and perseverance he exuded. The advocacy group said it learned of Ben-Zvi’s passing late last month.
Ben-Zvi leaves behind his wife, Debbie, and four young children.
All Ben-Zvi’s articles for The Algemeiner can be found here.
May his memory be a blessing.