RSS
Most Russians Don’t Support Israel, Even as It Fights for Its Survival
Russian President Vladimir Putin shakes hands with then-Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi during a meeting in Moscow, Russia, Dec. 7, 2023. Photo: Sputnik/Sergei Bobylev/Pool via REUTERS
It is hard not to notice that the war Israel is waging, with the support of the United States and other allies in the Western bloc, against Iran’s terrorist alliance and its radical Islamist Arab proxies — Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq, and others — has its reflection in the ideological, political, and diplomatic discourse of post-Soviet conflicts, primarily the Russian-Ukrainian and Armenian-Azerbaijani conflicts.
This also introduces adjustments to the foreign policy stance of those USSR successor states that have various geopolitical interests in the Middle East.
A prime example in this regard is the Russian Federation, whose return as a key player in the second half of the 2000s became an important factor in the new configuration of political forces in the region. In Israel, the early Middle Eastern reflections of Russia’s bid to reclaim its status as a global superpower was met with mixed assessments. Optimists were inclined to believe that Moscow was returning to the Middle East not as a proponent of any particular ideology, but out of purely pragmatic considerations. Therefore, even if global geopolitical interests might, in principle, place Israel and Russia on opposite sides of the barricades, this would not necessarily lead to direct confrontation between the two countries, leaving ample room for cooperation beyond points of disagreement.
On the other hand, pessimists were convinced that Russia would sooner or later revert to the global political models and views of the late Soviet era — including seeing Israel as a potential adversary, given its strategic partnership with the United States.
Consequently, the dynamics of a potential intensification of US-Russian competition in the Middle East would ultimately shift almost any discrepancies between Jerusalem and Moscow from the category of “disagreements between partners” to that of “direct confrontation, leaving little room for compromise,” according to experts and staff from relevant Israeli, American, and Russian think tanks.
Initially, Moscow indeed attempted — with some success at times — to position itself as a party capable of cooperating with virtually all actors in the Middle Eastern conflict and even mediating between them.
However, after October 7, 2023, Russia explicitly supported Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranian bloc as a whole. At the same time, the profile of the rapidly developing Russian-Israeli relations of the past decade sharply diminished, although Moscow and Jerusalem attempted to maintain a semblance of “business as usual”.
In other words, recent events appear to conclude the nearly 15 year debate between “Kremlin optimists” and “Kremlin pessimists.” The current situation fits into a normative framework characteristic of a substantial and influential segment of Russia’s foreign policy elites: Russia’s strategic partner in the region is Iran, which supplies critically important weapons for use on the Ukrainian front and secures Russia’s “southern flanks” in terms of geopolitical interests. This logic does not, however, extend to Russia’s view of Israel’s interests, as Israel is a strategic ally of Russia’s adversary — the United States. Against this backdrop, it is unsurprising that numerous practical steps and statements by Russian leaders have been widely interpreted as expressing solidarity with Iran’s Arab satellites, including Hamas and Hezbollah.
“Overnight” Shifts in Russian Public Discourse
The Russian public’s response has closely mirrored the foreign policy positions of the Russian political establishment, shaped largely by state-controlled information channels, as outlined in Part 1 of this article.
According to one of the earliest sociological surveys conducted in the USSR — though not fully representative, it provided some insight into the effectiveness of Soviet propaganda and the internal and external policies of Soviet leadership — Israel was among the top five enemies of the USSR, along with the United States, the United Kingdom, West Germany, and China.
This survey, conducted by Professor B. Grushin in the late 1960s, highlighted these perceptions. However, after the collapse of the USSR and a shift in foreign policy, attitudes toward Israel appeared to change drastically. Regular sociological measurements by the reputable Yuri Levada Center in Moscow, beginning in the late 1980s, indicated that in the absence of state-driven anti-Israel or anti-Semitic sentiment, Russian public opinion toward Israel was predominantly neutral (“similar to other countries in the region”) or mildly positive.
From the mid-1990s and over the next 25 years, approximately 60% of respondents consistently reported a lack of hostility or animosity toward Israel. About one-fifth of those surveyed expressed positive sentiments or interest in Israel, while an average of only 1 in 10 respondents indicated a negative view of the country. Isolated years marked by “spikes” in anti-Israel or “negatively neutral” attitudes — such as during the 2006 Lebanon War, noted in the first part of our article—were unfortunate exceptions.
Despite this generally neutral or favorable stance, research from this and other sociological agencies found that a considerable legacy of Soviet anti-Zionist propaganda persisted in the public consciousness, particularly among older individuals, residents of rural areas, and those with lower levels of education and income.
Superficially, the longstanding Arab-Israeli conflict seems to have little effect on current levels of anti-Semitism in Russia or public attitudes toward Israel. Only 3% of Russians closely follow Middle Eastern political news or actively seek related information, primarily those who have traveled to Israel or have relatives or close friends there. Another 17% follow the situation “from time to time,” while the majority remain indifferent, uninformed, or simply do not follow developments in the region. Three-quarters of respondents stated they do not support either side in the conflict, while 10% expressed sympathy for both. Among the remaining respondents, support was almost evenly split: 8% sided with Israelis, and 7% with Arabs. This neutrality is gradually increasing, as previous surveys showed support levels at 12% and 10%, respectively.
Nevertheless, anti-Zionism, though less overt than in the Soviet era, remains an “acceptable” expression of latent antisemitism among certain groups. This includes belief in Zionist conspiracies and notions of Jewish plans for global dominance. “Traces of this ideological indoctrination and propaganda, along with a rejection of liberal values and democracy,” note the authors of a 2020 study by the Levada Center, commissioned by the Russian Jewish Congress, “are still evident today in attitudes toward Israel and Jewish emigration.”
The reversion of Russian leadership to Soviet-era narratives on the Arab-Israeli conflict has notably shifted public sentiment. In an October 2024 Levada Center survey, respondents had a favorable view of China (81%), Brazil (55%), Turkey (52%), and Iran (50%), with only 27% expressing positive views of Israel — comparable to views of France (20%), the UN (19%), the EU (16%), the US (16%), and Ukraine (14%).
This is a marked contrast from 2013, when respondents viewed Israel as a friendly state. In September 2018, 52% of Russians surveyed by the Public Opinion Foundation also viewed Israel as friendly, with only 16% holding an opposing view.
Who Is Responsible for the Middle Eastern Conflict?
There is little doubt that the current decline in public sympathy for Israel stems from the official rhetoric and stance of Russian authorities. This trend has had a noticeable impact on Russian public opinion.
A survey conducted by the Levada Center in late October 2023 revealed that while two-thirds (66%) of respondents did not support either side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, those who sympathized with the Palestinian Arabs (in this case, Hamas) outnumbered those sympathetic to Israel by 3.5 times. Support for Israel was more common among members of the “internet party” — younger people aged 25-39 and residents of major cities.
In general, compared to data from 2007–2010, the share of supporters of Palestinian Arabs in the conflict with Israel has doubled (from 9–14% to 21%), while support for the Jewish State has similarly halved, dropping to 6%.
Nevertheless, Russians largely consider the United States and NATO countries to be primarily responsible for ongoing bloodshed and instability in the Middle East — a view shaped by both Soviet-era and current Russian state propaganda. The belief that the US and NATO bear the main responsibility is most prevalent among older respondents (44% of those aged 55 and older), low-income respondents (44%), those who believe the country is on the right track (40%), and those who rely on television for information (44%).
However, compared to the 2023 survey, support for this viewpoint has dropped by nearly a quarter — from 45% to 38% — largely due to a nearly twofold increase (from 12% to 22%) in those blaming Israel entirely. The proportion attributing responsibility to Hamas and Palestinian extremists has remained steady over the past year, with less than 10% of respondents holding this view. Meanwhile, the percentage assigning blame to Iran and its allies, or to Russia, hovered around or below the margin of error.
Some demographic divides are present, though not pronounced, along lines of gender, age, political outlook, and socioeconomic status. Men (27%), respondents aged 55 and older, and those who believe “things in Russia are going in the right direction” (25%) are more likely to hold Israel responsible for the continuation and escalation of the conflict. On the other hand, younger respondents under 24 (13%), more affluent respondents (10% of those able to afford durable goods), and those who believe the country is on the wrong track (13%) are more likely to attribute responsibility to Hamas and Palestinian Arabs.
Interest within Russian society in Israel’s conflict with Arab terrorist groups has noticeably waned over the year since the beginning of the IDF’s “Operation Iron Swords” in Gaza. While over 80% of Russians surveyed by the Levada Center in September 2024 stated that they were aware of Israel’s war with Hamas, only one in five respondents (19%) reported closely following the developments — almost half the figure from October 2023 (32%). Nearly two-thirds (62%) of respondents said they had “heard something but without details,” which is only slightly higher than the previous year (56%). Those who admitted to hearing about the conflict “for the first time during the survey” nearly doubled, reaching 18% in September 2024 compared to 11% in October 2023.
In other words, Russian public engagement with Israel’s fight against Iranian-backed Arab terror — and the Middle Eastern conflict more broadly — remains limited. The “television party,” which represents a significant portion of Russian society, continues to follow official narratives. Should a direct confrontation between Russia and Israel occur in the Middle East, Russian society is likely to accept it with the same “understanding” that many Russians displayed toward the military aggression against Ukraine.
That said, another perspective also exists, such as among the dwindling number of “optimists” in Israel who argue that the differences, or even sharp disagreements, between Israel and Russia on various issues do not reflect a fundamental conflict of interests between the two nations but rather the current global context of Russia’s interests. They believe that if the context shifts or Israel’s role within it changes, so too could the state of Russian-Israeli relations — and, with it, Russian public sentiment.
In any case, if this shift does happen, it likely won’t occur until after the wars in Eastern Europe and the Middle East have concluded — something that does not appear imminent.
Prof. Vladimir (Ze’ev) Khanin lectures in Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University and is Academic Chairman of the Institute for Euro-Asian Jewish Studies in Herzliya, Israel. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Most Russians Don’t Support Israel, Even as It Fights for Its Survival first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
UK Muslim Groups Reject Interfaith Pact With Jewish Leaders Because Chief Rabbi Is a ‘Zionist’
The signing of the Drumlanrig Accords at Buckingham Palace. Photo: Screenshot
A coalition of Muslim organizations in the United Kingdom has rejected a recently announced Muslim-Jewish reconciliation agreement aimed at improving relations between the two communities, condemning the landmark pact over the involvement of British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, who they denounced as a “staunch Zionist.”
In a joint statement, more than 25 Muslim groups, including Friends of Al Aqsa and The Cordoba Foundation, expressed strong opposition to the Drumlanrig Accords over Mirvis’s support for Israel. They also argued that the agreement, which was drafted in January and signed last month, lacked legitimate representation as it was backed by “self-appointed” Muslim leaders who do not represent the will of the Muslim community.
The signatories “failed to consult widely with grassroot organizations supported by the Muslim community before they signed these accords with the chief rabbi, who is a staunch Zionist,” the statement said.
“Rabbi Mirvis has supported Israel’s war on the Palestinians in Gaza,” the coalition continued, before citing debunked casualty figures supplied by Hamas-controlled authorities. “We cannot in good faith acknowledge these accords when the chief rabbi has made public statements supporting Israel despite the horrific actions of the Israeli Occupation Forces.”
In January, representatives of 11 denominations from Judaism and Islam met at Drumlanrig Castle in Scotland to agree to a pact aimed at improving relations between the two faiths. The signatories said the accords were designed to unite the Jewish and Muslim communities in Britain to “help tackle both antisemitism and Islamophobia, as well as poverty and isolation,” while promoting mutual respect and solidarity.
Jewish and Muslim leaders formally signed the agreement last month and presented it to Britain’s King Charles III at Buckingham Palace in London.
“The Drumlanrig Accords represent a bold first step toward rebuilding a meaningful trust between Muslim and Jewish communities over the long term,” Mirvis said in a statement following the signing of the accords. “They do not gloss over our differences; they acknowledge them.”
“They also send out a powerful message that in times of division, when it is far easier to retreat into fear and suspicion, we are prepared to take the more challenging path to reconciliation,” he continued. “We do so not because it is easy, but because it is necessary.”
In their statement released earlier this week, Muslim leaders explained they would only accept and support the accords if the UK’s chief rabbi condemns the “genocide and apartheid being enacted against the Palestinian people,” welcoming a collective multi-faith movement against oppression.
“Until then, we wholly reject these accords made purportedly on behalf of the Muslim community,” the coalition said. “A central facet of Islam is the complete rejection of oppression. As a community, we do not shy away from rejecting oppression in all its forms against anyone.”
The statement did not acknowledge Hamas’s widely recognized military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations and direct attacks.
In Monday’s statement, the groups also argued that the Muslim leaders who signed the accords were “self-appointed” and do not represent the wider British Muslim community, but rather they only speak for a small minority.
“These self-appointed Muslims were fully aware that they only represent a small minority of the overall British Muslim population,” the statement read. “The majority of the British Muslim community do not even know who these individual Muslim ‘leaders’ are. Their actions and decisions were made independently without consulting the wider Muslim community.”
According to their statement, these Muslim groups would be “wholly supportive” of interfaith relations if carried out in good faith.
“We note the significant rise in anti-Muslim hatred within the Jewish community and support engagement on challenging hatred in all its forms,” the signatories said.
The signing of the accords came amid an ongoing surge in antisemitic crimes across the UK since the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel, amid the ensuing war in Gaza.
Last month, the Community Security Trust (CST), a nonprofit charity that advises Britain’s Jewish community on security matters, released data showing the UK experienced its second worst year ever for antisemitism in 2024, despite recording an 18 percent drop in antisemitic incidents from the previous year’s all-time high.
In one of the latest incidents, a visibly Jewish man in England was brutally attacked after a prayer service, leaving him fearing for his eyesight, with local police investigating the assault as a hate crime.
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists started the war in Gaza when they murdered 1,200 people and kidnapped 251 hostages during their invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.
In January, both sides reached a ceasefire and hostage-release deal brokered by Egypt and Qatar with the support of the United States.
The post UK Muslim Groups Reject Interfaith Pact With Jewish Leaders Because Chief Rabbi Is a ‘Zionist’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Legal Nonprofit Launches Civil Rights Blitz Against Campus Antisemitism in California
Illustrative: A pro-Hamas demonstrator uses a megaphone on the one-year anniversary of Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack, amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, in New York City, US, Oct. 7, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Mike Segar
The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law has launched a legal blitz in California, announcing on Thursday that it filed three federal civil rights complaints against California State Polytechnic, Humboldt (Cal Poly), Scripps College, and the Etiwanda School District in San Bernardino County.
“While an increasing number of schools recognize that their Jewish students are being targeted both for their religious beliefs and due to their ancestral connection to Israel, and are taking necessary steps to address both classic and contemporary forms of antisemitism, some shamefully continue to turn a blind eye,” Brandeis Center founder and chairman Kenneth Marcus said in a statement announcing the actions. “The law and the federal government recognize Jews share a common faith and they are a people with a shared history and heritage rooted in the land of Israel.”
According to the Brandeis Center, the three complaints are being supported by several co-litigants — with Jewish on Campus (JOC) being a party to the Cal Poly complaint; the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and Arnold & Porter LLP to the Scripps College complaint; and StandWithUs and the ADL to the Etiwanda School District complaint.
Cal Poly is accused of allowing Jewish students to be subjected to “vicious antisemitism,” standing down while pro-Hamas activists doused them in fake blood and committed other acts of intimidation, such as antisemitic graffiti and hate speech. Rather than correcting the hostile environment, the Brandeis Center and JOC alleged, the university recommended that those being targeted hide any indicators of their Jewishness and even terminated their participation in a club fair as an alternative to disciplining a pro-Hamas student who physically harassed them at the event.
At Scripps College, in Claremont, California, a Jewish student was allegedly ordered to remove her Star of David and routinely taunted with antisemitic tropes accusing Jews of being “immoral,” rapacious, and exercising “control” over media. Living openly as a Jewish woman has become an unrelenting tribulation for this student, the Brandeis Center and Arnold & Peter added, noting that she has seen her social network collapse due to her attending Shabbat dinners and “studying Torah with the campus rabbi.” In addition to allegedly neglecting to respond to these indignities, Scripps has been accused of showing further disregard for the civil rights of Jewish students by helping pro-Hamas agitators evade accountability for behaviors such as vandalism. The situation, the groups said, has prompted many Jewish students to leave the country to participate in study abroad programs rather than remain on campus.
The Etiwanda school district case recounts the experience of a 12-year-old Jewish girl who was allegedly assaulted on school grounds — being beaten with a stick — told to “shut your Jewish ass up,” and teased with jokes about Hitler. According to the court filings, one student said such behavior would have never happened were she not Jewish. Despite receiving a slew of complaints about the discriminatory treatment, a substantial amount of which occurred in the classroom, school officials have allegedly eschewed punishing her tormentors.
The Algemeiner has reached out to Cal Poly, Scripps College, and the Etiwanda school district for comment and will update this story if they respond.
Cal Poly told the Lost Coast Outpost, a local media outlet, that it is “reviewing the federal complaint and will, of course, fully cooperate with the [US Department of Education’s] Office of Civil Rights in any investigation.” The school added, “Hatred or discrimination in any form, including antisemitism, is contrary to our core values. The university unequivocally condemns all acts of hatred, bigotry, and violence, and we are committed to keeping safe our students, staff, and faculty of all religions. We will continue to work together to foster a learning and working environment where we can all feel safe, included, and respected.”
According to leading voices behind the federal complaints, administrators at many educational institutions are not doing enough to combat anti-Jewish discrimination.
“Too many of our nation’s young minds are being corrupted by the disease of antisemitism. It is the duty of K-12 educators and administrators to provide the necessary education to inoculate them — not indoctrinate them,” StandWithUs chief executive officer and founder Roz Rothstein said in a statement. “As long as students continue to find themselves on the receiving end of anti-Jewish hate and bigotry from their peers or teachers, and their appeals to administration continue to fall on deaf ears, we will continue to show up and support them in holding their schools accountable.”
The ADL’s vice president of national litigation, James Pasch, added, “ADL and our partners will not sit idly by as Jewish students are attacked for their identity — from our college campuses to our K-12 schools, our educational institutions have an obligation to protect their Jewish students and ensure that all its students receive an education free of harassment and discrimination.”
The Brandeis Center has spearheaded litigation for dozens of complaints of antisemitism in recent years, taking on large, powerful institutions, as well as lesser-known ones, across the US. Recently, it achieved the pausing of the Santa Ana Unified School District’s (SAUSD) implementation of an ethnic studies curriculum that, according to the lawsuit, district leaders in California intentionally hid from the Jewish community to conceal its antisemitic content.
Just weeks prior, the Brandies Center negotiated the resolution of a lawsuit which accused Harvard University of violating the rights of Jewish students by failing to discipline a professor whom a third-party firm had deemed guilty of mistreating Jewish students.
The organization’s legal actions further its mission to combat antisemitism in educational institutions, Marcus noted in Thursday’s press release, saying, “Schools that continue to ignore either aspect of Jewish identity are becoming dangerous breeding grounds for escalating anti-Jewish bigotry, and they must be held accountable.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Legal Nonprofit Launches Civil Rights Blitz Against Campus Antisemitism in California first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Dismisses Trump Threat, Says Hostages Will Only Be Released With Lasting Ceasefire
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.