RSS
Women, Children, the Aged, and the Injured First? Male Hostages Shouldn’t Be Forgotten
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.
RSS
Trump Administration Impounds $250 Million From UCLA, Citing Antisemitism
US President Donald Trump points a finger as he delivers remarks in the Roosevelt Room at the White House in Washington, DC, US, July 31, 2025. Photo: Kent Nishimura via Reuters Connect
The Trump administration has confiscated a nine-figure sum in federal funds from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), citing numerous complaints of antisemitism on the campus — some of which the institution recently settled in a multi-million-dollar lawsuit.
The federal government impounded, according to various reports, some $250 million to punish the university’s alleged exposing Jewish students to discrimination by refusing to intervene when civil rights violations transpired or failing to correct a hostile environment after the fact. The move comes only a couple days after UCLA agreed to donate $2.33 million to a consortium of Jewish civil rights organizations to resolve an antisemitism complaint filed by three students and an employee.
On Thursday, UCLA chancellor Julio Frenk, a descendant of Jews who left Germany in the 1930s, said the loss off funds is “a loss for America” while arguing that it will not help in addressing antisemitism.
“With this decision, hundreds of grants may be lost, adversely affecting the lives of and life-changing work of UCLA researchers, faculty, and staff. In its notice to us, the federal government claims antisemitism and bias as the reasons,” Frenk wrote in a message to the campus community. “This far-reaching penalty of defunding live-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.”
He continued, “We share the goal of eradicating antisemitism across society. Antisemitism has no place on our campus, nor does any form of discrimination. We recognize that we can improve, and I am committed to doing so. Confronting the scourge of antisemitism effectively calls for thoughtfulness, commitment, and sustained effort — and UCLA has taken robust actions to make our campus a safe and welcoming environment for all students.”
Many antisemitic incidents occurred at UCLA before the institution was ultimately sued and placed in the crosshairs of the Trump administration.
Just five days after Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, as previously reported by The Algemeiner, anti-Zionist protesters chanted “Itbah El Yahud” at Bruin Plaza, which means “slaughter the Jews” in Arabic. Other incidents included someone’s tearing a chapter page out of Philip Roth’s 2004 novel The Plot Against America, titled “Loudmouth Jew,” and leaving it outside the home of a UCLA faculty member, as well as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) staging a disturbing demonstration in which its members cudgeled a piñata, to which a picture of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s face was glued, while shouting “beat the Jew.”
Later, pro-Hamas activists erected a “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” on campus during the final weeks of the 2024 spring semester and chanted “death to the Jews,” set up illegal checkpoints through which no one could pass unless they denounced Israel, and ordered campus security assigned there by the university to ensure that no Jews entered it. UCLA allegedly refused to clear the encampment despite knowing what was happening there, prompting allegations that it allowed a “Jewish Exclusion Zone” on its property. The antisemitism complaint that was settled earlier this week argued that the university violated its own policies as well as “the basic guarantee of equal access to educational facilities that receive federal funding” and other equal protection laws.
On Tuesday, the university announced that it agreed to pay $6.45 million in total to settle the lawsuit.
“Antisemitism harassment and other forms of intimidation are antithetical to our values and have no place at the University of California,” UC Board of Regents Chair Janet Reilly said in a statement. “We have been clear about where we have fallen short, and we are committed to doing better moving forward. Today’s settlement reflects a critically important goal that we share with the plaintiffs: to foster a safe, secure, and inclusive environment for all members of our community and ensure that there is no room for antisemitism anywhere on campus.”
On the same day, the US Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division ruled that UCLA’s response to antisemitic incidents constituted violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
“Our investigation into the University of California system has found concerning evidence of systemic antisemitism at UCLA that demands severe accountability from the institution,” Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement. “This disgusting breach of civil rights against students will not stand: the [Department of Justice] will force UCLA to pay a heavy price for putting Jewish Americans at risk and continue our ongoing investigations into other campuses in the UC system.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
RSS
Michigan Senate Candidate Sits Down for Interview With Anti-Israel Streamer
Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed Launches Bid (Source: WLNS 6 News/Youtube)
Abdul El-Sayed, a Democrat running for the US Senate in Michigan, recently appeared on the platform of controversial anti-Israel social media personality Hasan Piker, raising questions about the candidate’s positions on the Jewish state.
El-Sayed, a physician and former Detroit health director, is mounting a 2026 progressive campaign for the open Senate seat in Michigan. His appearance on Piker’s stream, which aired on YouTube and Twitch, covered a range of topics from health care to foreign policy. But his decision to appear on a stream by Piker, who has an extensive history of repudiating Israel and defending the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, has drawn scrutiny.
The two did not talk in depth about Israel or the ongoing war in Gaza during the interview. However, Piker stated that anti-Israel politicians can now succeed in American politics as opposed to previous generations, pointing to the ascendance of New York City Democratic mayoral primary winner Zohran Mamdani, who has made activism against the Jewish state a cornerstone of his political career. Piker encouraged El-Sayed not to “back away” from condemnations of Israel, claiming that “a lot of people agree” with the far left on the issue.
Piker has an extensive history of repudiating Israel as an “apartheid state” and defending atrocities committed against its civilians. In a 2024 livestream, Piker minimized sexual assaults committed against Israeli women at the hands of Hamas, saying “it doesn’t matter if rapes f—king happened on Oct. 7.” He has also defended violence by both Hamas and the Houthis, a Yemen-based Islamist terror group, as legitimate “resistance,” and said he doesn’t “have an issue with” Hezbollah, which pummeled Israel with an unremitting barrage of missiles and rockets from southern Lebanon in the immediate aftermath of Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on the Jewish state.
El-Sayed has also positioned himself as a fierce critic of Israel. The progressive champion was a prominent supporter of the “Uncommitted movement,” a coalition of Democratic officials which refused to support the 2024 Kamala Harris presidential campaign over her support for Israel. However, El-Sayed later clarified that he would support Harris over Donald Trump in the general election.
El-Sayed has been especially critical of Israel’s war in Gaza. On Oct. 21, 2023, two weeks after the Hamas slaughter of roughly 1,200 people in southern Israel, the progressive politician accused Israel of “genocide.” He also compared Israel’s defensive military operations to the Hamas terrorist group’s conduct on Oct. 7, writing, “You can both condemn Hamas terrorism AND Israel’s murder since.”
In comments to Politico, El-Sayed criticized Democrats’ handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, arguing that they should become the “party of peace and justice” and said that they “ought not to be the party sending bombs and money to foreign militaries to drop bombs on other people’s kids in their schools and their hospitals.” He called on Democrats to stop supporting military aid for Israel, saying “we should be spending that money here at home.”
RSS
German Foreign Minister Tones Down Palestinian Recognition Talk on West Bank Trip
Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul gestures next to a member of clergy during the visit to the town of Taybeh, a Christian village in the West Bank, Aug. 1, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ali Sawafta
German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul sought to tone down previous comments about his country’s position on Palestinian statehood during a trip to the West Bank on Friday, saying Germany had no immediate plans to recognize a Palestinian state.
Wadephul’s comment followed sharp criticism from Israeli officials over his earlier suggestion, before he left for the trip, that Germany could respond to any unilateral Israeli actions with recognition of a Palestinian state.
Far-right Israeli government minister Itamar Ben-Gvir had written on X: “80 years after the Holocaust, and Germany returns to supporting Nazism.”
After meeting Israel’s foreign minister, prime minister, and president on Thursday evening, Wadephul explained on Friday that Germany did not plan to recognize a Palestinian state immediately, “as that is one of the final steps to be taken” as part of a two-state solution.
Wadephul’s attempt to clarify his remarks highlights Germany’s longstanding difficulty in taking a clear position on the issue, caught between growing international pressure on Israel amid the Gaza war and Germany’s own post-Holocaust commitment to ensuring Israel’s security.
He called on Israel to ensure safe access for United Nations agencies to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, saying the current restrictions were worsening the crisis.
“The humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza must end now,” Wadephul said, stressing that aid distribution through the UN needed to resume without obstacles.
He said Germany would provide an additional 5 million euros ($5.7 million) to the UN World Food Program to support bakeries and soup kitchens and fund a field hospital in Gaza City.
Asked about Israeli concerns that aid could be diverted by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, Wadephul acknowledged that misuse could not be fully ruled out but said it was no reason to block relief efforts.
“The best way to prevent Hamas from misusing supplies is to deliver more aid and ensure full coverage for the population,” he said.