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

The differences between Hamas and Israel can be seen not only in how they fight, but also in how they cease fighting.

More specifically, the terms of the ceasefire agreement, the first stage of which is now ending, are very revealing. All of the possible explanations cast a very negative light on Hamas — and thereby on its supporters.

Hamas was soundly battered during the war that began with its October 7th massacre in Israel. The other inhabitants of Gaza paid a very heavy price for that attack, which the majority of them supported.

While Israel had profoundly degraded Hamas’ capacity by the time of the January 2025 ceasefire, it had not eliminated Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza. Furthermore, it had only succeeded in freeing, or retrieving the bodies of, a small proportion of the hostages that Hamas and other Islamist factions in Gaza had taken from Israel.

This undecisive outcome, combined with external pressure to reach a ceasefire agreement, explains why neither party was in a position to dictate terms unilaterally. Nevertheless, the terms were remarkably lopsided in favor of the Palestinians.

Given that Hamas and Gazans bore many more fatalities and the overwhelming majority of the infrastructural damage and internal dislocation, Gaza appears to have had a much greater interest in the ceasefire itself, than did Israel.

Israel’s main incentive was the return of hostages taken on October 7. However, the asymmetry of the agreement is manifest in the number of convicted Palestinian criminals and terrorists released compared to the number of innocent Israeli hostages.

In the first phase of the ceasefire agreement, 33 Israelis (or their bodies) were to be released. In exchange, Israel agreed to release between 1,800 and 1,900 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom were lawfully convicted of crimes including mass murder and terrorism.

What explains such asymmetric terms in favor of the losing side? There are a few possible and overlapping explanations. They all reflect badly on Hamas.

The first possible explanation is that Israeli (and other) hostages in Gaza face much greater threats than do Palestinians in Israeli prisons. The latter are not in a life-threatening situation. They are not liable to execution at any moment. They are not kept on starvation diets, nor housed in unsanitary conditions in humid tunnels without light, or adequate ventilation. They have access to medical care (as Yahya Sinwar, architect of the October 7 attack, himself had when he was an Israeli prisoner).

There have been reports of some Palestinian prisoners being subjected to abuse, but even if those isolated examples did happen, there are important differences. Not least among these is that such abuse is illegal under Israeli law, with disciplinary action being taken at least sometimes. By contrast, abuse is the norm for hostages in Gaza.

However, to the extent that Palestinian prisoners are abused, the asymmetric terms of the agreement suggest a second explanation, namely that Hamas cares less about the welfare of Palestinian prisoners in Israel than Israel cares about hostages in Gaza.

The same is true about the valuing of lives. According to this explanation, Israel values the lives (and even the bodies) of its citizens and residents (of all religions) more than Hamas values the lives of Gazans.

The third possible explanation is that while Israel is a democracy ultimately accountable to an electorate, Hamas, as an authoritarian regime, is not answerable to Gazans. Even if there is some truth to the criticisms that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been unduly influenced by his own interests in weighing up the interests of the hostages relative to the goal of defeating Hamas, he is still inordinately more accountable to Israeli public opinion than Hamas is to Gazan public opinion.

There is nothing surprising in any of these possible explanations. It did not take the October 7 massacre, and the atrocities of that day and the many months since, for us to know that Hamas is indiscriminate in its violence. Instead, these events provided further and more horrifying evidence of what was already known.

We also already knew, from Hamas’s methods of waging war in multiple conflicts with Israel, that it cares very little about Gazan deaths. Indeed, it may attach positive strategic value to those deaths. Similarly, it is — or should be — no surprise that Israel is a democracy, and Hamas a repressive theocratic regime that treats its own citizens viciously.

What is dismaying is how many people, including in Western countries, have failed to draw these conclusions. Despite all the evidence, both in war and in ceasefire, they continue to side with the repressive theocracy of Hamas over the democracy that is desperately defending itself against an enemy that combines a medieval mentality and morality with modern munitions.

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

The post How the Gaza Ceasefire Agreement Highlighted Hamas’ Depravity first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Revital Ohayon and her two sons,  and Noam, of Kibbutz Metzer, who were murdered in 2002.

With tragic poignancy, in the week that Israel is mourning the murder of Shiri Bibas and her two sons, Ariel and Kfir, of Kibbutz Nir Oz, Israel released the terrorist responsible for the murder of Revital Ohayon and her two sons, of Kibbutz Metzer (above).

Terrorist Muhammad Naifeh was convicted of involvement in the murder of 13 Israelis, including Revital and her sons, on their kibbutz in 2002.

Like the images of Shiri Bibas trying to protect her children, Revital was murdered while hovering over her sons, Matan and Noam, trying to protect them.

Last week, the murderer of Revital and her sons — literally moments after being released from prison in exchange for Israeli hostages and still on the terrorists’ bus — already pledged to return to terror in “proud partnership” with Hamas terrorists.

He “saluted” them for successfully releasing the Fatah terrorists. “Thank you for all this sacrifice … We, as Fatah members, are proud of this partnership [with Hamas], which will be better in the coming days than in the past.”

Here are his full, odious remarks:

Released terrorist murderer Muhammad Naifeh: “Me [Muhammad Naifeh], ‘the Frenchman’ [13 life-sentences], Abu Satha [9 life sentences], Mansour Shreim [14 life sentences], Ahmed Abu Khader [11 life sentences; all released terrorists], and everyone, and Abd Al-Karim Aweis [6 life sentences], and the entire leadership of [Fatah’s] Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades [terror wing] and their founders, we salute you [Hamas], and we will be by your side. We are partners of the future, Allah willing.

Thanks to the [Hamas’] Izz A-Din Al-Qassam Brigades. Thank you for all this sacrifice.

The Hamas Movement is a respectable movement, and it exists, and the occupation [i.e., Israel] cannot eliminate Hamas. Hamas is an idea that cannot be eliminated, and it is a main and true partner of the Palestinian national project. We as Fatah members are proud of this partnership, which will be better in the coming days than in the past days, Allah willing.” [emphasis added]

[Quds News Network (Hamas), X (Twitter) account, Feb. 15, 2025]

The identical nature of the Hamas and Fatah cruelty, together with this Fatah terrorist’s hate rant, should be a reckoning for those who still mistakenly differentiate between the Hamas terrorists, whose leaders sit in Qatar, and Fatah terrorists, whose leader sits in Ramallah.

Itamar Marcus is the Founder and Director of Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), where a version of this article originally appeared.

The post Revolting: See the Children and Mother Massacred By Newly Released Terrorist first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov shakes hands with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi during a meeting in Tehran, Iran, Feb. 25, 2025. Photo: Russian Foreign Ministry/Handout via REUTERS

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Tuesday rejected the possibility of nuclear talks with the United States, which imposed new sanctions on Iran’s oil industry as part of the Trump administration’s so-called “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran.

“There will be no possibility of direct talks between us and the United States on the nuclear issue as long as the maximum pressure is applied in this way,” Araghchi said during a joint press conference with his visiting Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov.

“We will not negotiate under pressure, threat, or sanctions,” he added.

The top Iranian official’s remarks came a day after the US Treasury Department announced new sanctions on Iran’s oil industry, targeting over 30 brokers, tanker operators, and shipping companies involved in transporting and selling Iranian petroleum.

The new oil sanctions were the latest to be imposed since US President Donald Trump reinstated his “maximum pressure” policy toward Tehran, aiming to cut the country’s crude exports to zero and prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Earlier this month, however, Trump also expressed a willingness to talk to Iran’s leaders, stating his desire to reach a “nuclear peace agreement” to improve bilateral relations with Tehran while insisting that the Iranian regime must not develop a nuclear weapon.

Iran’s so-called “supreme leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rejected the idea of negotiating with Washington, calling such a move “unwise” and “dishonorable.”

Tuesday’s high-level meeting between Russian and Iranian officials took place in Tehran to discuss bilateral relations, regional developments, and the 2015 nuclear deal with major world powers that placed temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.

“On the nuclear issue, we will move forward with the cooperation and coordination of our friends in Russia and China,” Araghchi said during the press conference.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement that the views of both Russian and Iranian officials were in alignment regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

“Positions were aligned on the situation around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [the official name for the 2015 nuclear deal] on the Iranian nuclear program,” it said.

Iran has claimed that its nuclear program is for civilian purposes rather than building weapons. However, the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), reported last year that Iran had greatly accelerated uranium enrichment to up to 60 percent purity, close to the roughly 90 percent weapons-grade level.

At the time, the UK, France, and Germany said in a statement that there is no “credible civilian justification” for Tehran’s recent nuclear activity, arguing it “gives Iran the capability to rapidly produce sufficient fissile material for multiple nuclear weapons.”

As Russia also faces increasing sanctions from the West over its war in Ukraine, Moscow and Tehran have deepened their cooperation. Ukraine and its allies have accused Iran of supplying weapons to Russia, allegations Tehran has denied.

Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian signed a 20-year “comprehensive strategic partnership treaty” reinforcing their economic and military cooperation.

The bilateral cooperation between Tehran and Moscow comes at a time when Iran’s influence in the Middle East is waning, with the fall of long-time Iranian ally Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in Syria and Israel’s military successes against two of Iran’s terrorist proxies: Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

After the collapse of Assad’s regime, which was driven by an offensive led by the Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) group, a former al-Qaeda affiliate, both Russia and Iran suffered a major setback in Syria despite years of investment in supporting their longtime ally during the civil war.

“Iran wants peace, stability, preservation of territorial integrity and unity, and the progress of Syria based on the will of the people,” Araghchi said on Tuesday, referring to Damascus’s new government.

During the press conference, Lavrov also referred to Syria’s new regime, saying, “We will do our utmost to ensure that the situation calms down and does not pose a threat either to the Syrian people … or to the people of neighboring states.”

The post Iran Rejects Nuclear Talks With US as Trump Admin Ramps Up ‘Maximum Pressure’ Campaign first appeared on Algemeiner.com.