RSS
Phase Two of the Hostage Deal: What Happens Next?
People stand next to flags on the day the bodies of deceased Israeli hostages, Oded Lifschitz, Shiri Bibas, and her two children Kfir and Ariel Bibas, who were kidnapped during the deadly Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas, are handed over under the terms of a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel, in Tel Aviv, Israel, Feb. 20, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
Israel and Hamas are nearing completion of “Phase 1” of the January 19 ceasefire and hostage release deal, and what will happen next remains shrouded in mystery.
An estimated 27 living hostages and an estimated 32 bodies of murdered hostages remain in captivity. Furthermore, the Hamas terror organization remains armed and in control of Gaza, and both Israel and Hamas are expressing opposing demands for which there is no possible compromise. But the world has changed since October 7, 2023, and the way forward may offer an unexpected new option.
The deal with Hamas was designed to occur in three phases: 1. Release of Israeli women, children, and elderly hostages in exchange for the release of Palestinian terror convicts held in Israeli prisons, as well as Israeli withdrawal from certain parts of Gaza, 2. Release of all remaining hostages in exchange for permanent and complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and 3. Rebuilding Gaza.
In effect, the only way to proceed to Phase 2 is for Israel to allow Hamas to remain in power and to be the beneficiary of massive amounts of international aid, thus almost certainly ensuring another October 7 style attack will lie in Israel’s future. Israel is determined to not permit such an outcome, and Hamas is determined to not settle for anything less.
While the Israeli government has been tight lipped about its plans (perhaps because no decision has yet been reached), one anonymous official leaked the following:
Hamas has three choices.
- Disarm, send its leaders into exile, and give up any civil control over Gaza, thus releasing the hostages and ending the war.
- Continue releasing hostages in the style of Phase 1, and thus extend the ceasefire for now.
- Return to war.
The Israeli official added that if there isn’t an agreement or another release of hostages by March 8, then war will resume.
It is unlikely that Hamas would choose option #1 (exile), which leaves option #2 (ongoing hostage release), option #3 (war), or Hamas’sdemand for total Israeli withdrawal.
Some Israelis suggest that Israel agree to Hamas’ terms as a kind of ruse, and then, once all the hostages are released, to violate the deal and return to war.Yet Hamas is not unsophisticated and will almost certainly maintain leverage over Israel: either by finding an excuse to hold back some hostages indefinitely, or else by some international mechanism that would succeed in tying Israel’s hands.
Others Israelis insist on agreeing to Hamas’ demands and paying “any price” for the return of the hostages, even if that price results in future terror attacks, future hostages, and future bloodshed for even more Israelis. Still others point out, quite correctly, that in 16 months of war, Israel has not fully accomplished any of its goals: as both Hamas remains in power, and Israeli hostages remain in Gaza.
Yet much has changed in recent months, and if Israel were to return to war, it would be prosecuted differently. Israel has been compelled to essentially fund both sides of this war, effectively providing fuel, electricity, and humanitarian supplies to Hamas. Hamas habitually stole these supplies and used them in two ways: 1. to directly support its fighters and fuel its rockets, or else 2. by selling supplies to civilians in order to raise funds for its military activities. This tactic also ensures Hamas’ ongoing popularity among the populace, as the terror group remains the sole source of food and supplies. Furthermore, international pressure greatly limited Israel’s ability to strike when and how it wished, to use certain weapons, or even to relocate Gaza’s civilians out of harm’s way, thus forcing Israel to fight through human shields.
Israel now has far greater support from the United States for aggressive action, including moving civilians out of Gaza. Such an approach would leave Gaza a total military zone, where Israel would have nearly unlimited freedom of action, and there would be no need for humanitarian aid, as there would be no civilian population to receive it. Moving civilians has proven highly effective over the past 16 months despite international doubts. For example, shortly after US Vice President Kamala Harris opposed moving civilians out of Rafah last March, claiming, “I have studied the maps, there’s nowhere for those folks to go,” Israel proved her wrong, moving a million people in just 10 days. Similar movements were accomplished out of Jabalya, Khan Yunis, and Gaza City.
It is also likely that, regardless of the fate of Hamas, Israelis will never be truly safe unless all Palestinians are relocated out of Gaza. Formerly an extreme right wing opinion, this notion is now the mainstream Israeli consensus across the entire political spectrum, with widespread support from almost all Israeli Jews (left, right and center) as well as nearly half of Israeli Arabs.
The impediment to moving Palestinians out of Gaza is therefore not the ability to physically move them, nor Israeli domestic opinion, nor international law which explicitly permits such movements, but rather the refusal of the Arab world to accept Palestinians under any circumstances.
Yet America has significant leverage over Egypt and Jordan, and has recently demonstrated a newfound openness to actually using it. For example: a mostly forgotten bit of history is that the Arab Spring (and the resulting overthrow of Egypt’s government) actually began when Russia stopped providing low cost wheat exports in 2011, thus spiking the price of bread within Egypt, and triggering the famous protests in Tahrir Square. This example demonstrates just how fragile certain middle eastern economies actually are. The United States, which provides billions of dollars of aid to Egypt and Jordan, can trigger similarly crippling economic effects with the stroke of a pen, thus endangering the very existence of entire countries without firing a shot.
Israelis are caught in a paradox: on the one hand wanting all hostages home, and on the other, wanting to fight for a safer reality on Israel’s southern border. The most likely outcome is that Phase 1 will informally continue, with ongoing hostage releases in exchange for ongoing ceasefire, until Hamas decides that the risk of no longer holding hostages is greater than the risk of imminent war. At that point, we will likely see a re-eruption of war in Gaza, but of a vastly different and more effective character than we have seen up until now.
One can only imagine how much bloodshed would have been spared on all sides, and how much more quickly the hostages might have come home, had Israel received the international support it both needed and deserved 16 months ago.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post Phase Two of the Hostage Deal: What Happens Next? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Syria’s Sharaa Says Talks With Israel Could Yield Results ‘In Coming Days’
Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks at the opening ceremony of the 62nd Damascus International Fair, the first edition held since the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, in Damascus, Syria, Aug. 27, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
Syria’s President Ahmed al-Sharaa said on Wednesday that ongoing negotiations with Israel to reach a security pact could lead to results “in the coming days.”
He told reporters in Damascus the security pact was a “necessity” and that it would need to respect Syria’s airspace and territorial unity and be monitored by the United Nations.
Syria and Israel are in talks to reach an agreement that Damascus hopes will secure a halt to Israeli airstrikes and the withdrawal of Israeli troops who have pushed into southern Syria.
Reuters reported this week that Washington was pressuring Syria to reach a deal before world leaders gather next week for the UN General Assembly in New York.
But Sharaa, in a briefing with journalists including Reuters ahead of his expected trip to New York to attend the meeting, denied the US was putting any pressure on Syria and said instead that it was playing a mediating role.
He said Israel had carried out more than 1,000 strikes on Syria and conducted more than 400 ground incursions since Dec. 8, when the rebel offensive he led toppled former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.
Sharaa said Israel’s actions were contradicting the stated American policy of a stable and unified Syria, which he said was “very dangerous.”
He said Damascus was seeking a deal similar to a 1974 disengagement agreement between Israel and Syria that created a demilitarized zone between the two countries.
He said Syria sought the withdrawal of Israeli troops but that Israel wanted to remain at strategic locations it seized after Dec. 8, including Mount Hermon. Israeli ministers have publicly said Israel intends to keep control of the sites.
He said if the security pact succeeds, other agreements could be reached. He did not provide details, but said a peace agreement or normalization deal like the US-mediated Abraham Accords, under which several Muslim-majority countries agreed to normalize diplomatic ties with Israel, was not currently on the table.
He also said it was too early to discuss the fate of the Golan Heights because it was “a big deal.”
Reuters reported this week that Israel had ruled out handing back the zone, which Donald Trump unilaterally recognized as Israeli during his first term as US president.
“It’s a difficult case – you have negotiations between a Damascene and a Jew,” Sharaa told reporters, smiling.
SECURITY PACT DERAILED IN JULY
Sharaa also said Syria and Israel had been just “four to five days” away from reaching the basis of a security pact in July, but that developments in the southern province of Sweida had derailed those discussions.
Syrian troops were deployed to Sweida in July to quell fighting between Druze armed factions and Bedouin fighters. But the violence worsened, with Syrian forces accused of execution-style killings and Israel striking southern Syria, the defense ministry in Damascus and near the presidential palace.
Sharaa on Wednesday described the strikes near the presidential palace as “not a message, but a declaration of war,” and said Syria had still refrained from responding militarily to preserve the negotiations.
RSS
Anti-Israel Activists Gear Up to ‘Flood’ UN General Assembly
US Capitol Police and NYPD officers clash with anti-Israel demonstrators, on the day Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint meeting of Congress, on Capitol Hill, in Washington, DC, July 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Umit Bektas
Anti-Israel groups are planning a wave of raucous protests in New York City during the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) over the next several days, prompting concerns that the demonstrations could descend into antisemitic rhetoric and intimidation.
A coalition of anti-Israel activists is organizing the protests in and around UN headquarters to coincide with speeches from Middle Eastern leaders and appearances by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The demonstrations are expected to draw large crowds and feature prominent pro-Palestinian voices, some of whom have been criticized for trafficking in antisemitic tropes, in addition to calling for the destruction of Israe.
Organizers of the demonstrations have promoted the coordinated events on social media as an opportunity to pressure world leaders to hold Israel accountable for its military campaign against Hamas in Gaza, with some messaging framed in sharply hostile terms.
On Sunday, for example, activists shouted at Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon.
“Zionism is terrorism. All you guys are terrorists committing ethnic cleansing and genocide in Gaza and Palestine. Shame on you, Zionist animals,” they shouted.
BREAKING: PRO-PALESTINE PROTESTORS CONFRONT “ISRAELI” AMBASSADOR DANNY DANON AT THE UNITED NATIONS
1/5 pic.twitter.com/4G1VYEMGzV
— Within Our Lifetime (@WOLPalestine) September 14, 2025
The Combat Antisemitism Movement (CAM), warned on its website that the scale and tone of the planned demonstrations risk crossing the line from political protest into hate speech, arguing that anti-Israel activists are attempting to hijack the UN gathering to spread antisemitism and delegitimize the Jewish state’s right to exist.
Outside the UN last week, masked protesters belonging to the activist group INDECLINE kicked a realistic replica of Netanyahu’s decapitated head as though it were a soccer ball.
US activist group plays soccer with Bibi’s mock decapitated HEAD right outside NYC UN HQ
Peep shot at 00:40
Footage posted by INDECLINE collective just as UN General Assembly about to kick off
‘Following the game, ball was donated to Palestinian Genocide Museum’ pic.twitter.com/TQ84sgZhKr
— RT (@RT_com) September 9, 2025
Within Our Lifetime (WOL), a radical anti-Israel activist group, has vowed to “flood” the UNGA on behalf of the pro-Palestine movement.
WOL, one of the most prolific anti-Israel activist groups, came under immense fire after it organized a protest against an exhibition to honor the victims of the Oct. 7 massacre at the Nova Music Festival in southern Israel. During the event, the group chanted “resistance is justified when people are occupied!” and “Israel, go to hell!”
“We will be there to confront them with the truth: Their silence and inaction enable genocide. The world cannot continue as if Gaza does not exist,” WOL said of its planned demonstrations in New York. “This is the time to make our voices impossible to ignore. Come to New York by any means necessary, to stand, to march, to demand the UN act and end the siege.”
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) and Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), two other anti-Israel organizations that have helped organize widespread demonstrations against the Jewish state during the war in Gaza, also announced they are planning a march from Times Square to the UN headquarters on Friday.
“The time is now for each and every UN member state to uphold their duty under international law: sanction Israel and end the genocide,” the groups said in a statement.
JVP, an organization that purports to fight for “Palestinian liberation,” has positioned itself as a staunch adversary of the Jewish state. The group argued in a 2021 booklet that Jews should not write Hebrew liturgy because hearing the language would be “deeply traumatizing” to Palestinians. JVP has repeatedly defended the Oct. 7 massacre of roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel by Hamas as a justified “resistance.” Chapters of the organization have urged other self-described “progressives” to throw their support behind Hamas and other terrorist groups against Israel
Similarly, PYM, another radical anti-Israel group, has repeatedly defended terrorism and violence against the Jewish state. PYM has organized many anti-Israel protests in the two years following the Oct. 7 attacks in the Jewish state. Recently, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) called for a federal investigation into the organization after Aisha Nizar, one of the group’s leaders, urged supporters to sabotage the US supply chain for the F-35 fighter jet, one of the most advanced US military assets and a critical component of Israel’s defense.
The UN General Assembly has historically been a flashpoint for heated debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Previous gatherings have seen dueling demonstrations outside the Manhattan venue, with pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian groups both seeking to influence the international spotlight.
While warning about the demonstrations, CAM noted it recently launched a new mobile app, Report It, that allows users worldwide to quickly and securely report antisemitic incidents in real time.
RSS
Nina Davidson Presses Universities to Back Words With Action as Jewish Students Return to Campus Amid Antisemitism Crisis
Nina Davidson on The Algemeiner’s ‘J100’ podcast. Photo: Screenshot
Philanthropist Nina Davidson, who served on the board of Barnard College, has called on universities to pair tough rhetoric on combatting antisemitism with enforcement as Jewish students returned to campuses for the new academic year.
“Years ago, The Algemeiner had published a list ranking the most antisemitic colleges in the country. And number one was Columbia,” Davidson recalled on a recent episode of The Algemeiner‘s “J100” podcast. “As a board member and as someone who was representing the institution, it really upset me … At the board meeting, I brought it up and I said, ‘What are we going to do about this?’”
Host David Cohen, chief executive officer of The Algemeiner, explained he had revisited Davidson’s remarks while she was being honored for her work at The Algemeiner‘s 8th annual J100 gala, held in October 2021, noting their continued relevance.
“It could have been the same speech in 2025,” he said, underscoring how longstanding concerns about campus antisemitism, while having intensified in the aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, are not new.
Davidson argued that universities already possess the tools to protect students – codes of conduct, time-place-manner rules, and consequences for threats or targeted harassment – but too often fail to apply them evenly. “Statements are not enough,” she said, arguing that institutions need to enforce their rules and set a precedent that there will be consequences for individuals who refuse to follow them.
She also said that stakeholders – alumni, parents, and donors – are reassessing their relationships with schools that, in their view, have not safeguarded Jewish students. While supportive of open debate, Davidson distinguished between protest and intimidation, calling for leadership that protects expression while ensuring campus safety.
The episode surveyed specific pressure points that administrators will face this fall: repeat anti-Israel encampments, disruptions of Jewish programming, and the challenge of distinguishing political speech from conduct that violates university rules. “Unless schools draw those lines now,” Davidson warned, “they’ll be scrambling once the next crisis hits.”
Cohen closed by framing the discussion as a test of institutional credibility, asking whether universities will “turn policy into protection” in real time. Davidson agreed, pointing to students who “need to know the rules aren’t just on paper.”
The full conversation is available on The Algemeiner’s “J100” podcast.