According to a source, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly announced a decision to fully occupy all of Gaza, including areas where the hostages are located, while reportedly informing the IDF chief of staff that if the decision does not suit him, then he should resign.

Israel has long avoided entering areas where the hostages were located for fear Hamas might kill them, and has also avoided moves that could be interpreted as even a partial occupation of Gaza, for fear of the responsibilities that would entail. (Until now, Israel maintained a legal blockade, but not an occupation, thus leaving Hamas in local control.)

Here’s how the dramatic change came about, the other options Israel had considered, and the dramatic potential and terrifying risks of this new direction.

Last week, hostage negotiations reached an impasse, with apparently no chance of forward progress. Afterwards, Hamas published videos showing Israeli hostages Evyatar David and Rom Broslovski in a state of starvation that resembles victims of the Nazi concentration camps, and tears at the Israeli soul. Meanwhile a massive, global propaganda campaign propagated the false myth that Gaza is experiencing an unprecedented famine, resulting in international pressure on Israel to take actions that would leave Hamas in power, and potentially even create a Palestinian state as an outgrowth of the October 7 massacre.

Here are the options Israel was forced to consider in recent days:

Option 1: End the war and bring home all the hostages, even if it means leaving Hamas in power.

Recent polls show that 74% of Israelis support this option, as echoed in passionate protests every Saturday evening. Yet this polling question refers to an imaginary deal that is not actually “on the table.”

A careful review of news articles and interviews since October 2023, shows that at no time has Hamas offered or agreed to any deal that would release all the hostages. Qatar and Egypt have suggested frameworks to that effect, however Hamas itself (which is the only party that matters) has never proposed, nor agreed to, any such framework.

This “option” is not actually an option at all.

What if such a deal were on the table?

This is a fantasy, but theoretically speaking, if a deal to return all the hostages were on the table, then Israel should take it … if, and only if, the consensus of Israelis are willing to recognize and pay the true price.

What is the true price? History tells us:

In 2011, Israel negotiated the return of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit from Hamas captivity. At the time, Israelis thought the price was the release of over 1,000 Palestinian security prisoners, including terrorists such as future Hamas leader and October 7 mastermind, Yahya Sinwar.

But that was not the real price.

Once Hamas understood how desperately Israel would negotiate for the return of hostages, the terror organization began planning to take more. The price Israel actually paid for the release of one soldier was, in retrospect, 251 additional hostages, 1,200 murders, mass rape, mass torture, mass beheadings, and the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

If Israel makes the wrong decisions today, it will invite further such massacres for years to come, not only by Hamas, which is currently weakened, but by the entire Arab world, which is watching events closely. If, and only if, Israelis are willing to risk paying that price, then Israel should make that deal.

This is not an easy (theoretical) choice, but again, such a deal is actually not on the table, so the “dilemma” is a fictional one.

Option 2: Declare sovereignty over parts of Gaza.

Israeli officials have been leaking plans to take parts of Gaza as Israeli territory. The logic is that Hamas’ raison dêtre, its very purpose for existence, relates to conquering and controlling territory.

Hamas is not deterred by loss of infrastructure or lives: to the contrary, the terror group has been planning for years to make that sacrifice: both to slow down IDF operations by manipulating Israeli values and ethics, and also by weaponizing international pressure against Israel. There’s a saying from the world of hi-tech, “it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.” This is true of Hamas’ intentional destruction of its own people and infrastructure.

By contrast, after a ceasefire deal last January that allowed locals to return to their homes in northern Gaza, Palestinians celebrated this return to “their land.” Hamas promised this would be only the first step on the way to conquering their “original homes” throughout Israel. In short: the Palestinian national identity is largely based on conquest and control of territory. Thus, the threat of losing territory should (in theory) motivate Hamas to negotiate.

On the other hand, Israel’s annexation threat has been circulating for about a week now, and if anything, Hamas seems to have become even less flexible, most recently saying it will lay down its arms only upon the establishment of a Palestinian state with full sovereignty and Jerusalem as its capital: this would effectively make October 7 into “Palestine Independence Day.”

Furthermore, regional powers have a history of not wanting sovereignty over Gaza. For example, as part of the peace accords of 1978, Egypt insisted on taking back the Sinai but not Gaza, as the territory’s Palestinian population had become too problematic. The Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was highly controversial, including haunting images of IDF soldiers forcibly removing Israelis from their homes. In retrospect, the disengagement laid the initial groundwork for five wars against Hamas and, eventually, the October 7 massacre. Yet there was a reason for the disengagement: protecting Israeli settlements in Gaza was taking up a disproportionate amount of the IDF’s resources, and killing a tragic number of IDF soldiers, something the majority of Israelis were no longer willing to tolerate at that time.

Whether sovereignty in Gaza is right or wrong at this time, there is no question that it will come at a cost: in both IDF resources and Israeli lives. Perhaps that cost is worth it, but Israelis will still have to pay.

Option 3: The Palestinian Authority takes control of Gaza

Last week, in a historic first, the Arab League condemned Hamas and the October 7 massacre (while also condemning Israel on a number of points), and called for an independent Palestinian state, to be governed by the Palestinian Authority.

This is a non-starter for Israelis: the Palestinian Authority participated in and frequently praises the October 7 massacre, has provided millions of dollars in payments to its perpetrators, and in the past two years, there has been a significant increase in terror attacks originating from areas under Palestinian Authority control.

Even more disturbing than the attacks that occurred is the attacks that haven’t: since October 7, 2023, Israel’s Shin Bet security service has prevented over 1,000 attempted large scale terror attacks out of the areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority, including attempted infiltrations in the style of the October 7 massacre.

In short, a Palestinian Authority government in any region next to Israel is a clear and present danger to Israelis.

Option 4: Military occupation

After nearly two years of fighting, one could be forgiven for assuming that all military options have been exhausted. They have not.

First some historical perspective: dismantling a terror organization takes time. America’s fight against Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden took roughly 10 years, and the war against ISIS took roughly the same. France’s Operation Barkhane against terror groups in the Sahel region of Africa took over eight years, while America’s war against the Taliban took over 25 (and without success). If Israel manages to fulfill its goals in Gaza in roughly two years, that will be, historically speaking, incredibly fast — even though it feels interminable to Israelis.

Yet Israel has a major military weakness in Gaza that is about to change: avoiding the hostages. Israel reportedly knows the location of the hostages, and fearing that Hamas might kill them, has entirely avoided those areas. The unfortunate result has been to create a safe haven for Hamas fighters, and also to preclude any possibility of a rescue operation. Such military action is risky: it will endanger the hostages should Hamas attempt to kill them outright, yet it may also result in their rescue. On the other hand, any delay endangers the lives of the hostages as well: with negotiations at an impasse and recent Hamas videos showing hostages in a dramatically deathly state.

Another danger is that occupation of Gaza requires an investment of IDF resources and risks Israeli lives, just as protecting the Israeli settlements in Gaza prior to 2005.

However, if successful, this operation will reshape the Middle East, provide Israel with much needed security, and turn October 7, 2023, from “Palestine Independence Day” into a cautionary tale for any power that might consider attacking Israel in the future.

Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.

Influential talk show host Jon Stewart calls himself a “bad Jew.” But in a recent interview with controversial author Peter Beinart, he had far worse things to say about the Jewish State.

Over the course of 18 minutes, the two men took turns vilifying Israel as their audience cheered along.

Stewart repeatedly professed ignorance between jabs — as if shrugging through inflammatory claims about an active war absolves him of responsibility. It doesn’t. Especially not when he echoes fringe voices like Beinart’s, who argued that harshly criticizing Israel is a moral obligation — one that is for Israel’s own good.

Stewart accused Israel of “purposeful starvation” in Gaza, conveniently ignoring that Israel has facilitated an unprecedented volume of aid to an enemy population during wartime.

He and Beinart painted Israeli Jews as oppressors, carefully omitting who started the violence. Hamas was erased from the frame. The October 7 massacre? Never mentioned. Instead, Israel was blamed for its own trauma.

At one point, Stewart baited Beinart with the tired trope that “David became Goliath.” Beinart took it even further — invoking the Holocaust and drawing a grotesque moral parallel:

If we want to remember our histories, if we want to honor those in our families who were slaughtered, genocided and starved, our obligation is to care.

Who was Beinart citing as his moral compass? B’Tselem, an anti-Israel NGO that has falsely accused Israel of apartheid and supports the annihilationist BDS movement.

The entire thrust of the interview was clear: Israel brought this on itself.

“They’re the ones risking the Jewish state,” Stewart said. Not Hamas. Not Hezbollah. Not Iran. Israel.

In one of the most cringeworthy moments, Beinart declared: “How you treat people affects how they treat you.”

As if Hamas is just misunderstood. As if they’d stop murdering Jews if Israel were just nicer.

Is he really that naive? Has he learned nothing from 35 years of suicide bombings, kidnappings, and rocket fire?

1/
Two self-styled “truth-tellers” living in safety spent 18 minutes on @TheDailyShow calling Israeli Jews the oppressors – while ignoring who initiated the violence.@jonstewart and @peterbeinart erased Hamas from the frame and blamed Israel for its own trauma. pic.twitter.com/jH9tqhAeGp

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) July 29, 2025

Beinart then trotted out the false claim that Palestinians acted like Gandhi in 2018, and Israel responded with snipers. What he left out: those “marches” were Hamas-led operations involving grenades, fence breaches, firebombs, and arson kites.

That isn’t nuance. That’s Hamas PR.

And then, in a moment of moral surrender disguised as insight, Stewart said: “If Jews need a Jewish state to feel safe, then humanity has failed.”

No, Jon. Jews don’t want to need a state. But history — and reality — have made it necessary.

This wasn’t journalism. It wasn’t moral clarity. It wasn’t even debate.

It was 18 minutes of finger-pointing. No Israeli voices. No accountability for Hamas. Just two self-righteous men tokenizing themselves on national TV.

Not journalism. Not justice. Just marketing for moral collapse.

The author is the Executive Director of HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

A number of attacks on Jewish individuals, institutions, or facilities took place in July. One report showed that pro-Hamas protests and violence in the US are directly supported by networks connected with the Chinese Communist Party. The arrest of a “free Palestine” activist in New York on the charge of burning 10 police vehicles, apparently as part of anti-immigration enforcement protests, also demonstrates the unity of various movements.

In a letter to the House Homeland Security Committee’s Counterterrorism and Intelligence subcommittee, the Jewish Federations of North America estimated the American Jewish community spends $765 million on security, or 14% of the annual budget for the average organization.

In the international sphere, a new report revealed the depth to which antisemitism in Britain has been normalized after October 7, 2023. Hate marches, threats of violence, cancellation of artists and musicians, harassment in academia and medicine, official neglect, and selective policing of Jewish counter-protestors, were all documented in detail. These attitudes are largely within the educated middle class and are propelled by DEI institutions that regard Jews as all purpose oppressors.

The normalization of anti-Israel views in the US and abroad has been fed and permitted by mainstream news platforms obsessed with tendentious views including The New York Times which continues to spotlight anti-Israel Jews. An analysis of headlines in the Times indicates most expressed sympathy with Palestinians and less than 10% with Israel.

Statements by the head of the BBC’s news department, Deborah Turness, in defense of a discredited documentary regarding the imaginary distinction between Hamas’ military and political wings reflected ignorance of both the facts and British law, but more significantly, a devotion to a tendentious framework that shaped reporting against Israel.

In another incident, a leaked BBC memo revealed instructions that “how much aid has crossed into Gaza is irrelevant” and that broadcasters should say the current distribution system, which cuts off Hamas theft and profiteering, doesn’t work.

Negotiations continued in July between the Trump administration and various universities regarding responses to antisemitism, DEI and hiring practices, and funding. Columbia University reached a settlement with the government that would will see $400 million in Federal funding and access to future funding restored in exchange for banning race based quotas and DEI statements in admissions, increased transparency surrounding admissions, hiring, and foreign gifts. The university will pay $200 million to the Federal government and another $21 million to Jewish faculty, students, and custodial staff to settle civil rights violations. The university did not admit to wrongdoing.

There will be no changes to shared governance, which places pro-Hamas faculty in control of university policies particularly with regard to pedagogy, and no consent decree involving Federal supervision. But a university administrator will make reports to an outside arbitrator, and disciplinary proceedings will be moved from faculty control to the administration. The IHRA definition of antisemitism was adopted, a mask ban implemented, and the university promised to expand Title VI and Title VII supervision and antisemitism training from outside groups.

In an obviously related development, Columbia announced the expulsion, suspension, and degree revocations affecting over 70 students involved in the spring 2024 encampments and building takeovers. Barnard College also reached a settlement with Israeli and Jewish students who had alleged the school had faced “pervasive discrimination.”

Columbia’s concessions were also motivated in part by embarrassing revelations from leaked text messages that acting president Claire Shipman had complained about an outspoken Jewish trustee, Shoshana Shendelman, whom she accused of being a “mole” working against the school, and suggested hiring an “Arab.”

Reports late in the month suggested Harvard was considering a similar deal with the government, with fines up to $500 million. In moves that signaled Harvard’s acquiescence to Federal demands, the university suddenly dismantled all of its DEI and associated websites. It was unclear whether this simply moved or renamed existing units or represented structural changes.

Harvard’s efforts came as university president Alan Garber again warned that Federal actions including the higher endowment tax could cost the university $1 billion a year. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) has also called on the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate Harvard’s disclosures to bondholders, alleging massive overvaluation of its investments in private equity. A Federal investigation that found Harvard had violated the civil rights of Jewish and Israeli students increased pressure further, as did comments from US Education Secretary Linda McMahon that the finding jeopardized Harvard’s accreditation.

With all eyes on the headline cases, universities have begun to rapidly adapt to the new realities. One change being made by universities is increased hiring of Title VI coordinators to handle civil rights complaints. The move promises more middle and upper level managers of the sort which have systematically disregarded Jewish students and supported their attackers. In one July example, a lawsuit filed by an Israeli Harvard student against the university detailed the abuse he received at the hands of fellow students and the university’s support for his attackers.

More substantively, the University of California system has banned student governments from boycotting Israel. The decision cited specific guidelines from the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health regarding eligibility for grants. UCLA also agreed to pay Jewish plaintiffs $6 million to settle discrimination complaints regarding pro-Hamas protests that barred their full access to campus. As part of the settlement the university entered into a permanent consent decree forbidding it from excluding Jews from any part of campus.

During the summer break anti-Israel faculty members have been vocal regarding their antipathies. Other faculty continue to leverage their authority to make statements regarding Gaza and the Trump administration’s approach to higher education. The impact of faculty antisemitism was noted in a lawsuit against Stanford University by an Israeli post-doctoral research alleging that his supervisor subjected him to a hostile work environment, permitted his research to be sabotaged by a research assistant, and then terminated him on false charges.

A new survey of faculty purported to show that only a small minority (3%) of US faculty members could be considered fundamentally antisemitic but a larger number (54%) regarded Israel as an “apartheid state.” Most appear concentrated in Middle Eastern, gender, and ethnic studies. An overwhelming majority of faculty characterized themselves as liberal, and regard climate change and President Trump as existential threats.

Elsewhere, the International Sociological Association suspended the membership of the Israeli Sociological Society in solidarity with the Palestinians and of “failure to condemn genocide in Gaza.” The association also offered a statement in solidarity with Iran and condemning the “escalating military aggression carried out by the governments of Israel and the United States against Iran, which has affected the lives of ordinary citizens of Iran” and which “represents a violation of international law.”

Similarly the European Association of Social Anthropologists announced guidelines for implementing its BDS policies. The group pledged to “not collaborate with Israeli academic institutions until Israel complies with International Law and International Humanitarian Law and ends the occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territory” but claimed that “motion targets collaborations with academic institutions, however it does not per se target individuals, even those based at Israeli institutions. In this regard, it cannot be considered discriminatory.”

While K-12 education is in recess for the summer, a variety of reports including from mainstream sources have noted the sector’s growing anti-Israel radicalism, notably in teachers’ unions.

After a carefully orchestrated campaign by activists, the National Education Association (NEA) voted at its annual representative meeting to officially cut ties with the ADL and to stop using any of its consultants, programming, or materials, citing anti-Palestinian bias and the need to promote “liberatory education.” The group also accused Israel of “genocide” and ‘ethnic cleansing,” and demanded an end to US support.

The “DroptheADL” campaign was created by several academics including those associated with the “Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism” and anti-Israel activists in the K-12 space. The move was condemned by Jewish groups, but endorsed by several local NEA branches. The decision was later overturned by the group’s Executive Committee and Board of Directors.

The NEA’s structural antipathy towards Jews, however, was demonstrated in its 2025 handbook which discusses the “12 million victims of the Holocaust from different faiths” without mentioning Jews, plans to “educate members and the general public about the history of the Palestinian Nakba,” and “use existing digital communication tools to educate members about the difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.” After being exposed, the document was removed from the NEA website. Archived versions remain available.

In another sign of growing radicalism, the United Federation of Teachers endorsed Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral candidacy in New York. Observers note that the union was responding to Mamdani’s radicalism and his promise to end any mayoral oversight of the city’s schools, a long-time sticking point in relations between the union and the city.

The problem of antisemitism disguised as “anti-Zionism” in Massachusetts public schools had been highlighted by a series of hearings which exposed the hostility of unions and their leaders to Israel and to Jews. The efforts have now culminated in a new report documenting antisemitic incidents and hate crimes within Commonwealth schools. The California Teachers Association, at the urging of “CTA for Palestine,” has also expressed its opposition to a bill to combat antisemitism and discrimination in K-12 education, claiming that it is censorship, and urged its members to lobby instead for “liberated ethnic studies.”

The impact in K-12 education has been seen in lawsuits against Seattle public schools which allege a Jewish student had to hide in a locked classroom to avoid mobs of her peers. Another suit alleges a Virginia private school promoted Hitler as a “strong historical leader,” hung Palestinian flags in the school, and expelled Jewish students who complained.

The author is a contributor to SPME, where a version of this article was originally published.