US President Donald speaking in the Roosevelt Room at the White House in Washington, DC on March 3, 2025. Photo: Leah Millis via Reuters Connect

Hamas on Thursday dismissed US President Donald Trump’s latest threat against the Palestinian terrorist group, saying it will only release the remaining Israeli hostages in Gaza with a lasting ceasefire.

The “best path to free the remaining Israeli hostages” is through negotiations on a second phase of the ceasefire agreement, Hamas spokesman Abdel-Latif al-Qanoua said.

The first phase of the truce, which lasted 42 days, ended on Saturday. During that time, fighting stopped between Israel and Hamas as the former withdrew some forces from Gaza. Meanwhile, Hamas released 25 living Israeli hostages and the bodies of eight more in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom were serving lengthy sentences for terrorist activity.

Only limited preparatory talks have been held so far regarding a second phase of the ceasefire, which could include a permanent truce, full Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza, and release of the remaining living hostages in exchange for more Palestinian prisoners. However, the future of the deal is in doubt, as both sides disagree on how to proceed.

Negotiations were further complicated by Trump, who on Wednesday posted a statement on his social media platform Truth Social in which he issued an ultimatum to Hamas.

“‘Shalom Hamas’ means Hello and Goodbye – You can choose,” the president’s post began. “Release all of the Hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you. Only sick and twisted people keep bodies, and you are sick and twisted!”

Trump added that he is “sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job,” and that “not a single Hamas member will be safe if you don’t do as I say.”

The US president then noted that he met earlier in the day with several former hostages who were released from Hamas captivity.

“I have just met with your former Hostages whose lives you have destroyed. This is your last warning! For the leadership, now is the time to leave Gaza, while you still have a chance,” Trump said

He also warned that Gazans could be killed if they assisted Hamas in detaining Israeli hostages. Several of the hostages freed from Gaza were held by families with connections to the Hamas terrorist group. These hostages reportedly experienced physical and psychological violence while being held in captivity.

“Also, to the People of Gaza: A beautiful Future awaits, but not if you hold Hostages. If you do, you are DEAD! Make a SMART decision. RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW, OR THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY LATER,” Trump wrote.

Beyond calling for the second phase of the ceasefire deal, Hamas also responded to Trump’s threat by arguing that it would embolden Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“Such positions are what give the war criminal Netanyahu the strength and ability to continue his crimes,” Hamas spokesman Salama Maroof said on Thursday.

Another spokesman for the terrorist group, Hazem Qassem, reportedly added, “Trump’s threats complicate matters related to the ceasefire agreement and push the occupation’s [Israel’s] government to become more radical. If Trump cares about releasing the occupation’s hostages, he should pressure Netanyahu to begin negotiations for the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement. We fear that the occupation will take advantage of Trump’s statements to intensify the Gaza siege and starvation policy against its residents.”

Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists started the war in Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023, when they invaded, southern Israel, murdered 1,200 people, and kidnapped 251 hostages. Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the captives and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.

Fighting stopped when the ceasefire went into effect on Jan. 19.

Israel recently presented Hamas with a proposal for an extension of the ongoing Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal. The proposal would mandate that Hamas release half of the remaining Israeli hostages who were kidnapped into Gaza at the beginning of the extension. The rest of the hostages would be released at the end, if Hamas and Israel can agree on a permanent ceasefire deal. Israel would retain the right to restart the war in Gaza if negotiations are unsuccessful by the 42-day mark.

According to Jerusalem, the ceasefire extension proposal was the brainchild of US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.

However, Hamas has refused to extend the first phase of the ceasefire deal, leading Israel to announce that it would block humanitarian aid transfers into Gaza to pressure the terrorist group into accepting the ceasefire extension.

Hamas is believed to still have 24 living hostages taken in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack, including Israeli-American Edan Alexander. It is also holding the bodies of 34 others who were either killed in the initial attack or in captivity, as well as the remains of a soldier killed in the 2014 Israel-Hamas war.

Under Trump, the White House has prioritized the release of Israeli hostages during the opening weeks of the new administration. Last month, Trump vowed to let “hell break out” in Gaza if Hamas did not release the remaining hostages.

“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 said at the time, 

The Trump administration has also started direct communications with Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, over the release of US hostages in Gaza.

“When it comes to the negotiations … the special envoy who’s engaged in those negotiations does have the authority to talk to anyone,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Wednesday. “Israel was consulted on this matter. Dialogue and talking to people around the world to do what’s in the best interest of the American people, is something that the president has proven, what he believes is good-faith effort to do what’s right for the American people.”

According to reports, US special envoy for hostage affairs Adam Boehler has been leading the discussions with Hamas in Doha, Qatar. The talks have mainly focused on securing the release of American hostages still in Hamas captivity. However, Hamas and US officials have also reportedly discussed brokering an agreement to release all remaining hostages in the enclave.

The post Hamas Dismisses Trump Threat, Says Hostages Will Only Be Released With Lasting Ceasefire first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Families and supporters react as they celebrate the release of Omer Wenkert, a hostage who was held in Gaza since the deadly October 7, 2023 attack, on the day of the release of six hostages from captivity in Gaza as part of a hostages-prisoners swap and a ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel, in Gedera, Israel February 22, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Rami Shlush

In negotiating the release of about 250 hostages, both living and dead, Israel has prioritized children, women, the aged, and the ill or injured. The prioritization was roughly in that order. Lowest on the list are younger men, and especially those without pre-existing medical conditions and who were not known to be injured on October 7, 2023.

Many people will assume that these are exactly the right priorities. However, there are good reasons for thinking that the matter is much more complicated. This is because every category of hostage is at greater relative risk of some serious harm. The challenge is to decide how to convert these different risk profiles into policy.

Among the reasons for prioritizing children, two main ones stick out. First, barring their captivity, they have the longest remaining life-expectancy, and thus more life-years can be saved by saving them. Second, they are among the least able to cope with captivity, which threatens them both in the moment but also their developmental needs.

There are also reasons for prioritizing women, and especially younger ones. They are arguably at greater risk of sexual assault. There have been reports of male hostages being subjected to such assault, and we still do not yet know the relative risk between the sexes.

While both sexes can be raped, younger females could also become pregnant as a result. The risks and horrors of enduring such a pregnancy and possible consequences are significant.

One reason for prioritizing the aged is that, like children, albeit in different ways, they are less able to cope with the physical assault of captivity conditions. However, there is also a reason to deprioritize older captives. Because their remaining life-expectancy is shorter, fewer life-years are saved.

Like the aged, the ill and injured can have added challenges in enduring and surviving captivity. The severity of the illness or injury affects the degree to which this is true.

These considerations are likely what informed the decisions about which hostages should be released first. However, we should not lose sight of the special risk profile of (younger) men, especially given that even some of the dead have been prioritized over them.

There is ample evidence that there are fewer psycho-social barriers to the infliction of (non-sexual) violence, including death, on males. Indeed, that is exactly why (young) men are so instinctually deprioritized in hostage releases. They may be at less risk in some ways but, as males, they are at more risk in other ways. This has already been acknowledged by one of the recently released young female soldiers, who said “We, the girls, suffered. But the boys and men suffered even more.” Further preliminary evidence is that, of the released hostages, the emaciated ones have been disproportionately male.

Sometimes the deprioritizing of younger males is thought to be justified by their being (combat) soldiers or at least of military age. Even when this is not a direct factor, it can be an indirect one. For example, it might be said that Hamas would be much less likely to release young males first. However, the fact that younger men are disproportionately combat soldiers, or seen to be so, it itself partly the result of a lesser valuing of male lives, and thus further evidence of the special risks faced by young men. Almost all the post-October 7 combat deaths have been male.

Weighing up the different risk profiles in decisions about whom to prioritize for release is an impossibly difficult and tragic choice. The matter is made even more complicated by other considerations, such as the expected timeline for the release of the final hostages.

The shorter the expected period between the initial releases and the final ones, the stronger the case for prioritizing those in more immediate danger. However, if the release of the final hostages is so far in the future that even the fittest young men are unlikely to survive, then the case for prioritizing the aged, for example, becomes weaker.

Obviously, any individual hostage’s risk profile is not determined only by their group characteristics. It can depend on which terror group is holding them, where they are held, whether the Israel Defense Forces is able to rescue them (without mistaking them for terrorists), and innumerable other circumstantial conditions and coincidences. Because these factors are even more unknown, there is less reason to consider them in developing a policy.

There has been some talk of the current policy favoring “humanitarian” cases. That is certainly a mischaracterization. Every hostage is a humanitarian case. (In the case of dead hostages, the main humanitarian considerations are their families’ interests in the return and proper burial of their remains.)

At the end of the first phase of the January-February 2025 hostage and prisoner release agreement, approimatly 27 living, and 32 dead, hostages remain in Gaza. They have been left until last. Some of the dead might not have survived precisely for that reason. For the others, we must hope that being left until last does not also mean that they will not last until they can be released.

David Benatar is Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town and currently Visiting Professor at the Centre for Ethics at the University of Toronto.

The post Women, Children, the Aged, and the Injured First? Male Hostages Shouldn’t Be Forgotten first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

A older model Waymo self-driving car on the road in Mountain View. Photo: Grendelkhan via Wikicommons.

Those of us residing in West Los Angeles have lived alongside Waymo “robotaxis” since early 2024. For those who don’t live in LA, Waymos are fully autonomous vehicles you can summon via an app, similar to Uber, and they’ll take you to your destination — without a human driver.

Truthfully, it’s pretty unnerving. These ghostly, self-driving vehicles, eerily smooth in their movements, glide through our streets, their cameras and spinning sensors bristling from every corner of the car, stopping at intersections with algorithmic precision. No driver, no hesitation — just cold, calculated efficiency.

Waymo is a project of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, and it may very well represent the future of personal transportation — a world where AI, not humans, takes the wheel. In theory, this sounds like a good thing. Computers don’t text while driving, they don’t get distracted, they never drink, and they certainly don’t experience road rage.

But there’s a problem. While AI can follow traffic laws perfectly, what happens when the unexpected occurs? Just last week, I watched a Waymo car — caught in a traffic snarl on a narrow side street — struggle helplessly to execute a U-turn, boxed in by cars ahead and behind. And that was in a situation where no one was in danger.

Now imagine something far more critical — a child suddenly running out into the street. A human driver might instinctively make a moral calculation: swerve into a parked car to avoid the child or slam the brakes and risk being rear-ended. But can an AI ever be programmed to make a moral decision? Should a machine really be entrusted with life-or-death choices?

The Waymo experiment is just one facet of a much larger debate raging in the worlds of medicine, law, and military ethics — how much decision-making can we safely outsource to artificial intelligence? It’s not a theoretical question; it’s a real and urgent dilemma with implications unfolding in real-time.

From self-driving taxis to AI-powered sentencing algorithms in courtrooms to autonomous drones in war zones, we increasingly hand over critical decisions to machines. Proponents argue that AI is more objective, efficient, and immune to human error. It can process vast amounts of data without bias, fatigue, or hesitation, operating strictly within the guidelines it has been given. But critics warn that morality isn’t just about data—it’s also about judgment.

Take, for example, the development of AI-controlled weaponry. Militaries worldwide are exploring whether autonomous drones should be allowed to fire without human approval. But is it ethical for a machine to decide who lives and who dies? Isn’t that a step too far?

Or consider the healthcare industry, where AI is already used to determine which patients receive organ transplants or critical care resources. Should a machine — guided by cold, detached algorithms — have the power to decide who gets a ventilator and who doesn’t?

It goes without saying that these dilemmas are not new. History is filled with moments where technological advancements or rigid systems clashed with human judgment — and the consequences were dire.

One example is the Flash Crash of 2010, when automated stock trading algorithms suddenly triggered an inexplicable stock market plunge. The machines were fine — they followed their programmed logic flawlessly, executing trades at lightning speed. But the result was utter chaos. Prices crashed in minutes, wiping out billions. It was only once human traders had intervened that order was restored.

Or consider airplane autopilot systems — invaluable for modern aviation but potentially deadly when pilots rely on them too much. The 2013 crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 was partly attributed to pilots who trusted the automated system even as it failed instead of taking manual control using human intuition.

Even in military history, the Cold War nearly ended in catastrophe in 1983 when a Soviet early-warning system falsely detected an incoming American nuclear attack. The system did exactly what it was programmed to do — it signaled that a nuclear response was required.

But one man, Soviet Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Petrov, chose to ignore the computer’s warning, relying on his gut instinct instead of blind faith in technology. He was right. The “attack” was a false alarm.

Had it not been for Petrov, a machine would have started World War III. No matter how advanced technology becomes, it can never fully replace human judgment.

Which brings us to one of the most fascinating decision-making tools in Jewish history — a concept embedded in Parshat Tetzaveh.

Amidst the detailed descriptions of the High Priest’s garments, we find one of the Torah’s most enigmatic artifacts: the Urim VeTummim. This mysterious tool, placed within the Choshen (breastplate) of the Kohen Gadol, was used to determine major national decisions.

When consulted, letters on the Choshen would illuminate in a divine display — but crucially, the High Priest had to interpret them. The Urim VeTummim wasn’t an oracle that dictated absolute answers; it required human wisdom to decipher and apply its message.

One striking case of misinterpretation occurred when the Israelites consulted it before waging war against the tribe of Benjamin (Judges 20). The response seemed to grant Divine approval for battle, yet they suffered two crushing defeats before finally emerging victorious.

Did they misunderstand the message? Did the Urim VeTummim signal approval for war but not guarantee success? Or was the answer contingent on factors they had failed to consider — such as whether they had adequately prepared? The failure suggests that Divine guidance still requires human judgment.

This detail is critical. Even when God Himself provided insight, it was never meant to override human decision-making. The Urim VeTummim was not a replacement for leadership; it was a tool to assist it.

In a sense, the Urim VeTummim is the closest thing in Jewish history to an AI-powered decision-making device — but it still required human intuition. This reality has profound implications for today’s world. AI can calculate risk, probability, and strategy, but it cannot weigh compassion, mercy, justice, or other human factors that can’t be reduced to algorithms.

The Urim VeTummim reminds us that even when Divine guidance is available, human judgment is irreplaceable. Which means that no matter how intelligent machines become, some decisions must always remain in human hands.

The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California. 

The post Judaism Teaches Us That AI Must Never Overtake Human Decision-making first appeared on Algemeiner.com.