Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, January 15, 2025

01/15 Links Pt1: Israel-Hamas Reach Second Ceasefire and Hostage Deal After 15 Months of War; Trump and Israelis may regret the hostage deal he wanted … and got

From Ian:

FDD: ‘Hamas Finally Agreed’: Israel-Hamas Reach Second Ceasefire and Hostage Deal After 15 Months of War

Latest Developments
Hostage Deal Finalized: President Joe Biden announced on January 15 that Israel and Hamas have agreed to a finalized ceasefire deal that would see the release of some Israeli hostages in exchange for significantly more Palestinian prisoners. During a televised speech, Biden said that the deal was a result of U.S. and Israeli pressure on Hamas. “After more than 15 months of war, Hamas’s senior leaders are dead, thousands of Hamas fighters are dead, and their military formations have been destroyed,” Biden said. “With nowhere to turn, Hamas finally agreed to releasing hostages.” The deal is still subject to a vote by Israel’s security cabinet, expected to occur on January 16. Hamas fighters flooded the streets of Gaza in celebration ahead of the deal’s implementation, which Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani said would start on January 19.

Three Stages of the Deal: The agreement includes three phases. The first would see Hamas release 33 hostages, all women, children, and men over 50. In return, Israel would release 100 Palestinian prisoners with life sentences from Israeli jails, 1,000 other Palestinian prisoners, and an additional unspecified number of prisoners that would be released abroad or in Gaza. The second phase would include the release of the remaining living hostages and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza. The return of remaining hostage bodies and reconstruction plans for the Gaza Strip are expected to be negotiated as part of the third phase.

Biden and Trump Welcome Development: The agreement was based on a plan introduced by Biden in May, but incoming Trump administration Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff actively worked to push the agreement through. President-elect Donald Trump said that his administration would work with Israel to ensure that “Gaza never becomes a terrorist safe haven” again, adding that the ceasefire would help build upon the Abraham Accords deal brokered during his first term between Israel, Bahrain, Morocco, and the United Arab Emirates.

FDD Expert Response
“Israel has not promised to end military operations, and the incoming U.S. president strongly supports Hamas’s destruction. Bringing the hostages home is urgent for the soul of the country and must be done ahead of any future operations.” — Mark Dubowitz, CEO

“Biden is right that Israeli military operations played an important role in finally reaching this point. It is a valuable reminder regarding the role of military power in strengthening leverage in negotiations. We might have reached this point sooner if Biden had spent more time imposing consequences on Hamas for refusing to release the hostages, less time slow-rolling weapons to Israel, and less time publicly criticizing our best ally in the Middle East as it confronted our common enemies.” — Bradley Bowman, Senior Director of FDD’s Center on Military and Political Power

“The deal is flawed. Jerusalem made major concessions to get their citizens back, and it will be divisive in Israel. Nevertheless, every Israeli will also breathe a sigh of release to see hostages come home alive, many of whom — especially the women and the children — have become familiar names and faces to millions of Israelis.” — Enia Krivine, Senior Director of FDD’s Israel Program and National Security Network

“By agreeing to a ceasefire deal, Israel is making significant strides toward one of its primary wartime objectives: securing the release of hostages who have been held captive for more than 15 months. However, this progress comes at a considerable cost. Israel faces the difficult decision of releasing members of terrorist organizations and individuals convicted of violent acts. Furthermore, without a comprehensive strategy, Hamas and its allies in the Gaza Strip will regroup, perpetuating a cycle of violence that could emerge once again in the future.” — Joe Truzman, Senior Research Analyst and Editor at FDD’s Long War Journal

Jonathan Tobin: Trump and Israelis may regret the hostage deal he wanted … and got

Falling short of his goal
First of all, the reported terms that Witcoff pushed on Netanyahu and Hamas, and its allies, fall far short of what Trump demanded. All of the hostages are not being released by Jan. 20.

During the first phase of the agreement, only 23 of the remaining women, children, elderly and severely ill who are alive are to be released in exchange for about 1,000 Palestinian terrorists. In addition, Israel will partially withdraw from Gaza while being obligated to facilitate the entry of more humanitarian aid into the Strip, though it is far from clear that most of it won’t again be stolen by Hamas or other Palestinian criminals rather than going to civilians. The remaining approximately 60 hostages, who may or may not be still alive, will only be released if a second-stage deal for a permanent end to the fighting can be negotiated with the bodies of others still in Hamas’s possession and will only be handed over during a theoretical third phase.

What price will Hamas try to exact for going along with a second or third phase? It will almost certainly be a demand for a return to the status quo ante of Oct. 6, 2023, when the Islamist group governed Gaza as an independent Palestinian state in all but name.

Anyone who thinks this won’t correlate to the terrorists rearming and reorganizing their military forces, which were destroyed during the war, is dreaming. And that will ensure a future in which Israelis will be expected to return to a steady diet of rocket and missile barrages from Gaza, as well as an ever-present threat of cross-border terrorist attacks. In other words, all of the sacrifices of blood and treasure Israel made to ensure that Hamas can never repeat the atrocities of Oct. 7 will have been for naught.

This would not only be a tragedy for Israel. It would put Trump in a position where he will have to choose, as Biden did, between full-throated support for the inevitable Israeli counter-attacks into Gaza to once again try to eradicate Hamas and a policy of pressuring Jerusalem to simply endure the pain of terrorism as their due.

The rhetoric coming out of the Trump team, such as U.S. Secretary of Defense nominee Pete Hegseth, about support for Israeli efforts to stamp out Hamas and other Iranian-funded terrorists, is encouraging. And it’s probably fair to assume that Witcoff has assured the Israelis that Trump will have their back if, as is likely, Hamas’s intransigence derails the second phase of the agreement. But if the Trump team believes in a policy that opposes handing Gaza back to Hamas (and there’s no reason to doubt it), why have Trump and Witcoff pushed for a ceasefire that will lead to just such an outcome? Wouldn’t Israel and the United States be better off avoiding doing anything to re-empower Hamas?

A Biden-like blunder?
There may indeed be a ceasefire in Gaza on Jan. 20. Still, Trump needs to understand that the price he is asking Israel to pay for freeing only some of the hostages will hand Hamas and Iran an undeserved victory. There is no denying that this is how the Palestinians and much of the world will perceive this deal. In doing so, Trump is making it more than likely that another round of vicious fighting in the Strip, during which more Israelis and Palestinians will die, will soon follow. Along with that come more decisions where the president will be forced to choose between letting Iran off the hook for its behavior and armed conflicts possibly involving U.S. forces.

This is exactly the sort of mistake that Biden made time and again, as well as the sort of strategic blunder Trump avoided in his first term.

There is much for friends of Israel and those who are deeply troubled by the surge in American antisemitism that took place during the Biden presidency to look forward to once the new administration takes over. And there is every reason to believe that Trump’s first day in office will see him signing executive orders that will begin the effort to end the reign of woke diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) racial discrimination and the “progressive” war on the West that is inextricably tied to Jew-hatred. But by starting his second term with a deal that is a gift to Hamas and Iran, he will be setting himself up for new problems because of an unforced error that Americans and Israelis may have to pay for in blood.

Richard Kemp: If Hamas accepts a ceasefire, it won’t be because of Biden

What is more, a temporary ceasefire in Gaza, if it does occur, may not turn out to be exactly what it seems to the man in the Oval Office for the next few days. In fact, it is likely to be one part of a wider strategy for the Middle East already agreed between Prime Minister Netanyahu and Trump. That plan will have several far-reaching elements but a primary objective is undoubtedly to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme, which represents an existential danger to Israel and threatens the Middle East and the world. It looks unlikely that Trump would send in US forces for this mission, but that isn’t strictly necessary. What is needed is for the US to give Israel the military assistance and diplomatic cover it requires, which Biden refused to do.

There has never before been a better time to eliminate this threat. And doing so could also lead to the demise of the ayatollahs’ regime with its regional and world-wide violent aggression. Israel has largely neutralised both Iran and Syria’s air defences, clearing the way for a major strike against Tehran’s nuclear installations. Another significant obstacle to such an operation was Hezbollah, whose vast armoury of missiles in Lebanon existed to deter and if necessary launch a counter-strike against the Israeli population in the event of an attack on Iran’s nuclear programme. Hezbollah’s offensive capability has now also been largely neutralised by Israel’s masterful decapitation of its leadership and devastating assaults against missiles and launch sites.

This is where the potential Gaza ceasefire comes into play. Israel has been working to free the remaining hostages for the last 15 months as a principal war aim. But despite its best efforts, ninety-four of them remain captive, some of whom are still alive. There is every probability that Hamas might murder the hostages in retaliation for a major attack on its sponsors in Tehran. It would therefore be desirable to get as many as possible out before that. There is another consideration also. Although Israel could launch an attack on Iran while continuing to fight in Gaza, there may be advantages in the proposed three-month cessation that could release important military assets.

It is therefore paradoxical that Biden’s pressure for a ceasefire might end up working against his rigid determination to prevent Israel attacking the Iranian nuclear programme. Such a move would have run counter to his four year long appeasement of the ayatollahs aimed at resurrecting Obama’s dangerously flawed nuclear deal which Trump did away with. Thankfully in this case, that has been yet another Biden foreign policy failure.

Daniel Greenfield: The Hamas Surrender Deal Sets Up Trump to Fail

Let’s be clear about two things
1. The Hamas Surrender Deal is the same deal the Biden administration has been pushing all along which consists of Israel giving Hamas everything it wants in exchange for the release of living or dead hostages.

The final terms haven’t yet been made public, but a leaked draft calls for exchanging live terrorists for dead hostages, an Israeli withdrawal, and Qatar being allowed to ‘reconstruct’ Gaza. Attempts to ‘sell’ the deal hinge on such details as whether Israel will be able to go back into Gaza which will be subject to interpretation. Based on past history, the interpretation that will be followed is the one that forces an end to the fighting.

2. The Hamas Surrender Deal puts the Trump administration in charge of then enacting and managing a policy crafted by the Biden administration and Qatar. The consequences when it inevitably falls apart will be on Trump.

Only so much can be known from outside, but Steve Witkoff appears to have been taken for a ride by longtime pros like Secretary of State Blinken and Brett McGurk and is enjoying the flattering media stories about him ‘intimidating’ and ‘cursing out’ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Witkoff is being taken for a ride and the Trump administration is being taken for a ride with him. He didn’t succeed, he failed miserably at extracting meaningful concessions from Hamas, and went right back to Biden’s policy of pressuring Israel. Instead of delivering a win for Trump, he delivered one for Biden.

Instead of crafting its own foreign policy, the Trump administration is being stuck with Biden’s policy of pandering to Islamic terrorists.

And that’s a disaster not only for Israel. but for America.

Ceasefire Dilemma: Sacrificing the Second Objective in Israel’s War Against Hamas (Judean Rose)

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

How many times have you heard someone say it—perhaps even said it to yourself, “The war would be over if Hamas released the hostages.”

The fact is, however, that from the very beginning, Israel had two objectives to the war. Certainly getting back our hostages was one of those objectives. The other was to end Hamas. Permanently. And all others who threaten Israel, as well.

This has been stated repeatedly, and from the very beginning of the war, by Israel’s embattled prime minister. I use the word "embattled" advisedly—the war has taken an obvious toll on Bibi, he’s gray, he’s shrunk, and the skin hangs loose from his neck—prime minister [emphasis added]:

Oct 25 2023

Prime Minister’s office, statement by PM:

"Citizens of Israel,

We are in the midst of a campaign for our existence. We have set two goals for this war: To eliminate Hamas by destroying its military and governing abilities, and to do everything possible to bring our captives home. All Hamas terrorists are dead men walking – above ground, below ground, outside Gaza.

As the voices grew louder against Israel and the Jews, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued an explainer. Not that these ever do any good or change minds. People who hate Jews especially hate it when Israel tries to explain itself. Nonetheless, the explainer tells the reader that Israel has TWO goals. 1) Freeing our captives from a hell they cannot survive, and 2) ENDING Hamas [emphasis added]:

Dec. 15, 2023

The War Against Hamas: Answering Your Most Pressing Questions

In light of Hamas’s heinous attacks on October 7, its incessant attacks on Israel since then, and its stated aim to pursue the destruction of Israel and death of its citizens (see, for example, here), Israel has been compelled to set as its goals both the release of hostages and the dismantling of Hamas’s military capabilities. . .

The explainer goes on in question and answer form, with the response to the seventh question, a repetition of the same two war objectives. In other words, no. The war would not end if the hostages were released. It would continue until Hamas is writhing in the flames of a hell-hot eternity. So, yeah. Two objectives [emphasis added]:

7. What is Israel’s response to the charge its actions against Hamas amount to collective punishment of the civilian population?

Israel’s operations are aimed against Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and are undertaken in order to neutralize the threat posed by them and secure the release of the hostages.

Now the explainer goes into greater detail here, as to the whys and wherefores, as it does throughout, but here, too, is that same double objective. Notice that the two objectives are never referenced in a particular order. From official statement to official statement, the order changes. I am certain that this is no accident, but done by way of asserting that both objectives are equally important, both releasing the hostages, and incinerating Hamas [emphasis added]:

The threat posed by Hamas is grave and imminent, as Hamas operates from territory that borders with Israel, seeks to conduct serious attacks inside Israel (as it did on October 7), continues to attack Israel daily (including by rocket fire that covers most of Israel’s territory), holds infants, children, women and men as hostages (without any outside communication and under the threat of execution, which has been materialized), and explicitly states its intention to keep attacking Israel until it is destroyed. As such, Israel’s goal of removing Hamas’s military capabilities and securing the release of the hostages is proportionate to the threat, and the force that Israel is using is the only feasible means available to neutralize the ongoing attacks and imminent threat of additional attacks.

Further down, the message is repeated, and it is a dual message. We will settle for no less than BOTH our objectives. [emphasis added]:

The military advantages that the IDF is seeking include destroying enemy military assets, targeting militants, degrading and denying enemy ability to command and control operations, neutralizing underground tunnels and infrastructure used for military purposes, and denying positions which endanger IDF ground forces (such as sniper, anti-tank and surveillance posts), all of which contribute to the overall objective of securing the release of the hostages and removing Hamas’s capability to further attack Israel and its citizens.

Less than a week after the explainer came out, a rather mild-in-tone CNN piece dutifully trotted out Israel’s two war objectives, even lauding Israel as “beyond reproach.” But of course, that was early on, when no one thought the war would last so long. Before the horrible Biden-Harris administration slow-walked arms to Israel, at the same time showering Iran with cash. And before the Biden-Harris-Obama-Clinton-Soros-What Have You administration forced Israel to give massive amounts of aid to the people of Gaza—aid that is invariably stolen by Hamas and sold at exorbitant prices to the people of Gaza, who voted for Hamas, and cheered and spat and mauled the hostages, who came en masse to abuse and rape and kill Israelis, a veritable house that Jack built [emphasis added]:

December 20, 2023

From the United Nations to NGOs and even influencers, critics of the way Israel is waging war against Hamas in Gaza are not in short supply; even US President Joe Biden has decried its “indiscriminate bombing.” But if there’s one area where Israel is arguably beyond reproach, it’s in the consistency of its stated war aims:

• Destroy Hamas so it can’t fulfil its goal of repeating the October 7 massacre.
• Bring back the remaining hostages held by Hamas.

Here in Israel, meanwhile, even the left agrees that there are two goals in this war that began when Hamas broke its ceasefire with Israel and brutally slaughtered, raped, and kidnapped more than a thousand Jews. (The things they did. No one had ever seen these things before. They are not human. Some kind of beastly creature from hell, set loose on earth.) Therefore, Hamas must be eliminated from this earth. Israel will not stop until this happens and until all the hostages are free. Both objectives. BOTH objectives.

The Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) is peopled with leftists like former justice Dorit Beinish, failed politicians like Tzipi Livni, and leftist Tel Aviv University academics. This think tank collected its own data on Israeli public support for the goals of the war, identifying them as dual in nature. They found a consistent pattern of solidarity among the people of Israel, behind the two objectives of the war. That said, there is way too much stress here on eradicating Hamas, in favor of releasing the hostages, which gets barely a mention—only twice on a nice-sized page: [emphasis added]:

January 10, 2024,

The goals of Israel’s war against Hamas, as presented by the government to the public in multiple formats, are toppling the terrorist organization’s rule in the Gaza Strip, destroying its military and governmental capabilities, lifting the threat of terror that Gaza has posed to Israel for years, and releasing the hostages. The level of public support for these goals could be an important indication of the level of solidarity among the Israeli public. This issue has been examined through weekly surveys conducted since the start of the war by the Data Analytics Desk at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), in conjunction with the Rafi Smith Institute.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has on many occasions stated the twin objectives of this war. And when it comes from him, it’s official [emphasis added]:

Jan 18 2024

Israel under my leadership will not compromise on less than total victory over Hamas, and we will win. I say this again, so that no one will be in doubt: We are striving for total victory, not just 'to strike Hamas' or 'to hurt Hamas', not 'another round with Hamas' but total victory over Hamas.

We will continue to fight will [sic] full force until we achieve all of our goals: Returning our hostages, and I say – only continued military pressure will lead to their release, eliminating Hamas and ensuring that Gaza never again constitutes a threat to Israel, that there will be no element in it that educates for terrorism, finances terrorism and sends terrorists against us.

In March, too, that double war objective was on full display when the AFP described a by now, par for the course conversation between Netanyahu and Joe Biden, with the latter yelling at Bibi in his old man’s yell, to not just cease fire immediately, but give more aid to Gaza, MORE aid, and by the way, release thousands of bloody-handed terrorists from Israeli jails (while slow-walking arms to Israel, and giving money to Iran).

Here, the same two goals are mentioned, but notably, Bibi is threatening still a third objective, thus increasing the pressure. Making Hamas SWEAT. (Feh.) Letting Hamas know that what is coming to them is far more comprehensive, the coup de grâce to a dying, monstrous beast that preys on Jews for sport.

For all that the AFP is notorious for getting in the way of the truth, for once they manage to accurately quote Netanyahu in regard to Israel’s objectives in the war taking place in the Gazasphere™. Note the addition of the third objective which is only the first in veiled disguise, for all of Gaza is Hamas, and much of the world is, as well [emphasis added]:

March 18, 2024

Israel is committed to achieving all its war aims against Hamas, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told US President Joe Biden in a Monday call as Israel faces international pressure to ease its operations in Gaza.

In their first call in more than a month, with Biden increasingly vocal about the war's impact on civilians, Netanyahu reiterated "Israel's commitment to achieving all of the war's objectives," the Israeli leader said in a statement.

Netanyahu cited the objectives as eliminating Hamas, release of all the hostages and "ensuring that Gaza will never present a threat to Israel."

The war dragged on, Netanyahu not budging from his stated desire of achieving not one but two objectives in the endless battles forced upon it by Hamas et al. It’s like being raped by war, a country invaded by this unwanted thing. But Israel will not give up and go away without achieving its twin objectives: getting the hostages out, ending Hamas [emphasis added]:

May 7, 2024

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Statement by the PM Netanyahu
"Last night, with the consent of the War Cabinet, I directed [that the IDF] act in Rafah. They raised Israeli flags at the Rafah Crossing and took down the Hamas flags.
The entry into Rafah serves two of the main objectives of the war: Returning our hostages and eliminating Hamas.

The same two objectives were mentioned in a Time Magazine interview of Netanyahu ten months into the war. Time was notably critical in its portrayal of Israel’s conduct in the wake of October 7. There seems to be stress on one of the two official objectives here: destroying Hamas. But that is only because Netanyahu is responding to Joe Biden.

Simply put, Bibi is making sure Biden doesn’t put words in Israel’s mouth. So here it is, a clarification. No, Joe. That’s not what we want. We don’t only want to hobble Hamas. We want Hamas dead and buried [emphasis added]:

August 8, 2024

Earlier this year, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken flew to Tel Aviv to meet Israeli officials in the Kirya, the towering office complex from which the Prime Minister and his Cabinet were conducting the war. Israel’s bombardment of Gaza had already caused an estimated 30,000 deaths, a count by the Hamas-led Health Ministry that doesn’t distinguish between militants and civilians, but is accepted by the U.N. and the White House. Nearly 2 million Palestinians had been displaced. It was a humanitarian catastrophe inflaming the world, and Blinken’s message to Netanyahu was simple: Wind down the war, you have achieved your objective, Hamas can no longer carry out another Oct. 7.

“That’s not our objective,” Netanyahu replied, according to a source familiar with the exchange. “Our objective is to completely destroy Hamas’ military and governing capabilities.”

Israel reached the one year mark, yet the war continued. A year had now passed since that black, black, black Sabbath. Time had stretched too far, the theater and purpose of war widening as it had always been destined to do. Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke to the people of Israel, attempting to coax them to hold out hope for complete victory [emphasis added]:

November 26, 2024

Citizens of Israel,

I promised you victory, and we will achieve victory.

We will complete the task of obliterating Hamas, we will bring home all of our hostages, we will ensure that Gaza no longer poses a threat to Israel and we will return the residents of the north back home safely.

The war will not end until we realize all its goals, including the return of the residents of the north safely home.

The truth is, it had never been true that Israel had only one objective to this war. Which is why I protested after a generally intelligent friend repeated on social media the fallacy of a single goal, the release of the hostages. My friend texted me in private. “You’re right. But they don’t need to know that.”

“Ah,” I said. “I see,” and I did, but I think it’s a mistake. I believe that Israel must assert its voice loud and clear. That this is what we want, and we will stop at nothing less.

And yet, as I write this, Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani has announced this evening that Israel and Hamas have agreed to a three-stage deal to release the 98 remaining hostages held in Gaza.

Is it true? As of 10:31 PM Israel time, there's no statement from Bibi. But if it is real, will the other objective of ridding the world of Hamas fall by the wayside? It sounds as though we are on the brink of doing something very wrong.

It would have been better to stall a bit longer, at least until January 20^th, which until now, all of us had made reference to, repeatedly, as in “January 20^th can’t come soon enough.”

And indeed, it hasn't. But as we all know, it ain't over till the fat lady sings.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Good news from the Israel-haters

Sometimes, good news arrives in ugly packages.

Here is the first line of an "action" email I received from a BDS group:

We have to be honest with you: congressional staffers tell us that calls opposing arming Israel have dropped to their lowest levels, with anti-Palestinian voices now outnumbering us 100 to 1.

"Anti-Palestinian voices" is how they say "pro-Israel voices."

Now, this could all be a lie, meant to energize the antisemites into action. But assuming they are telling the truth to each other, it means that all of their "victories" that they trumpet are an illusion to make themselves feel more powerful and important than they are.

Either way, the proper response is to call or email your local senator and member of Congress to make sure that they continue to support Israel.

Do it every week.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Artificial cornea, slowing aging, "Iron Dome" for wildfires - Israel saving the world again and again

Here are just a few recent stories of incredible Israeli innovations.

From Times of Israel:

Pioneering scientist Michal Schwartz of the Weizmann Institute says that she and her team of researchers are close to developing a groundbreaking immunotherapy treatment that could help boost the immune system — and slow the aging process.

The research appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Neuron.

Schwartz, a 2023 Israel Prize recipient, was the first to discover that the brain is highly dependent on the immune system for its lifelong maintenance and function. She has spent the last 27 years studying the connection between the immune system and the aging brain.

Her international team of researchers now believes that an intervention to boost the immune system could potentially slow or even halt the aging of the brain as well as the body.

Also from TOI:

Founded in 2024 by CEO Benjamini and Dr. Adi Naor Pomerantz, FireDome is developing a wildfire defense system, modeled after the Iron Dome, that pairs defense tactics and AI technology. Designed to detect and suppress fires, the autonomous patent-pending system is geared to provide two layers of protection.

In response to an alert by the fire department that a wildfire is approaching an area, first, a mechanical stationary launcher releases capsules similar to projectiles that open before impact to disperse eco-friendly fire-retardant to create a protective barrier and block the path of encroaching wildfires. Second, an AI-powered system leveraging computer vision and sensor technology detects and extinguishes spot fires caused by airborne embers that bypass the primary barrier.

Also (AI summary of this article):

Israeli company CorNeat Vision has developed an artificial cornea that could help address the global shortage of cornea donors. Currently, there's only one donor cornea available for every 70 needed, with about two million new cases of corneal blindness reported each year.

The key innovation is their CorNeat KPro, which uses a special synthetic nano-fabric that mimics the eye's natural tissue structure. Unlike previous artificial corneas, this one doesn't require any donor tissue and can be implanted through a relatively simple 45-minute surgery. The device simply snaps into place and is sutured to the eye.
What makes this particularly promising is:

Patients can see normally right after the surgery
It heals faster than alternatives because it integrates with the conjunctiva (the white part of the eye), which heals better than the cornea
It allows doctors to perform future eye procedures if needed without removing the device
The artificial material is designed to be long-lasting and won't degrade over time

The company is planning clinical trials in several countries, including Israel, Canada, the Netherlands, and France.
This development could provide hope for millions of people suffering from corneal blindness who currently face long waiting times for donor corneas.

One clinical paper I found said that the first patient in 2022 achieved to 20/320 vision, which is legally blind in many contexts but is a great deal better than total corneal blindness. I imagine things are improving now.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

Is the hostage deal worth it? So far it looks disastrous

13 years ago, as the Gilad Shalit deal was close to being finalized, I wrote that I was conditionally supportive of the deal. As I wrote then:

I'm seeing a number of people in the comments, on Twitter and on groups I follow who are against the Shalit deal if it means that hundreds of murderers are freed in exchange.

The argument has two components.

One is that they are likely to kill Israelis in the future - as we have seen happen in the past, many times. And families of victims of the murderers are understandably upset at the thought that the monster will go free.

The other argument is that these one-sided swaps encourage terror groups to kidnap more people to facilitate more swaps.

I am sympathetic to these arguments. I've even made these arguments. And from a utilitarian perspective, they make a great deal of sense - one person's life is not worth the lives of many possible future victims.

However, there is a flaw in this logic, one that to me can tip the scales towards supporting the swap.

The fact is that the terror groups are already filled with people who would kill Israelis at every opportunity. The fact is that these groups already have a strategy of kidnapping any Israelis they can. With a few exceptions, most of the prisoners are not the brains behind successful terror attacks - they were just facilitators, people who are interchangeable with hundreds and thousands of other members of Hamas and Fatah and Islamic Jihad.

The reason that there have been relatively few terror attacks over the past few years isn't because of a lack of trying - it is because Israel is better at defending herself. The number of potential terrorists has remained steady at best, and the ones being released would not change that appreciably.

Yes, statistically there is a good chance that there will be future attacks involving some of the terrorists in this swap. But chances are the attacks would occur anyway with different people. Brainless terror drones are a dime a dozen in the territories.

The organizers who actually dream up new ways of killing should not be released. But most of the terrorists in the swap, from what I can tell, do not fit that description.

We now have the benefit of hindsight. The Shalit deal was a disaster because one of the people released, Yahya Sinwar, was the mastermind of October 7.

At the time Sinwar was considered a monster - to other Palestinians. He murdered suspected "collaborators" with his bare hands. But he already was an organizer at the point of his second imprisonment, in charge of the program to find and execute these people for the entire south Gaza and he reported directly to Sheikh Yassin, the founder of Hamas. He was not a "brainless drone." He was a leader, proudly ruthless, and should have been recognized as such and never released.

Every single terrorist must be evaluated from the perspective of whether they are potential Sinwars or even potential third level leaders, not whether they have Israeli blood on their hands. The chances that there are no skilled and creative organizers among thousands of released terrorists are very low indeed.

Another point is that at this stage we don't even know how many hostages are still alive. No one wants to put a price on any human life, but if most of them are no longer alive, God forbid, then it makes no sense to trade living terrorists for bodies. Without an accurate list of the living ahead of the deal, there should be no deal, period.

Don't forget that Hezbollah used that ambiguity to great advantage. In 2006 Hezbollah abducted soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser specifically to get arch-terrorist Samir Kuntar released. This sparked the 2006 war, but in the end Nasrallah won: for most of the negotiations it was unknown whether Regev and Goldwasser were alive or dead and in the end it was a swap of their bodies for one of the most notorious and ruthless terrorists; Israel gained nothing.

If most of the prisoners are no longer alive, their corpses are not worth living terrorists. Not to mention that Hamas monsters can easily keep part of their bodies for future deals, forever.

Jewish law and tradition prioritizes saving captives a lot more than bodies.

The swap is only one problematic issue.

Andrew Fox wrote an excellent critique of the deal as we understand it now, and I agree with almost everything he says.

The main problem is not the prisoner release, as bad as that is. It is that Hamas remains in power in Gaza, from everything we can tell. One of the war's goals was to eliminate Hamas as a military threat and while it is weakened, it has shown the ability to fill in every vacuum in Gaza when the IDF leaves an area and continue to control the people and steal aid to cement its position.

Iran's loss of influence in Gaza is not as much of a loss for Hamas as it was for Hezbollah, because Hamas was always aligned more with the Muslim Brotherhood than the Shiites of Iran. Hamas will be rebuilt by money from Turkey, Qatar and the Egyptian MB. As Fox notes, "This deal exponentially increases the risk of a Muslim Brotherhood hegemony filling the void left by Iran’s Shia Crescent of proxies in Syria and Lebanon. Hamas’s reconstruction will take time, but Arab planning does not work in electoral cycles: it works in generations."

This is a major reason I support the UAE as a key player in the "day after" Gaza scenario. It is the least bad of all options to fill the governance gap, outside of annexation by Israel which is a headache no one wants.

Fox also points out that Hamas being allowed to exist makes it the clear winner in the cognitive war. The terror group gained support internationally from the war, and the only thing that could turn that around would be a perception of utter defeat. We see that the Arab world has turned against Hezbollah and the reason isn't a change in philosophy - it is because no one wants the shame of being associated with a loser.

This deal enhances Hamas' perception in the Muslim world. That is unacceptable.

From the Israeli perspective, Fox points out what most were not willing to admit: Israel's war goals were incompatible.

A key problem was Israeli selection of military-strategic aims. Their goals of dismantling Hamas and restoring Israeli security were arguably mutually exclusive to the aim of returning the hostages: only a handful have been freed by military force. The whole IDF campaign plan was designed around the first two, but the Israeli government has ultimately prioritised the third. This strategic disconnect leaves Gaza in ruins, over 400 IDF soldiers dead and over 2,500 wounded. Hamas is degraded but still in control and able to rebuild. Palestinian hatred of Israel unabated and exacerbated. Israel’s international reputation is destroyed, and they have very little to show for any of it.

I'm not sure about the last sentence. As I noted, Israel's reputation in the Arab world has gone way up since last fall with the pager attack, Nasrallah's assassination and Israel's destruction of Iran's air defenses. They don't like Israel any more, but they respect it, and that's the best anyone can hope for.

That respect would disappear if Israel allows Hamas to continue to exist, since most Arab leaders hate the Muslim Brotherhood inspired Islamists.

Finally, Fox addresses one of the worrying aspects of how he deal appears to have been allowed:

The reason behind this ceasefire is possibly more worrying than the ceasefire itself. It is not dictated by the achievement of any strategic or tactical goals; it is dictated by Trump. Last year, I was barracked on X when I urged caution in Israeli jublation over Trump’s election. Sadly my pessimism has been validated, although I did not expect Trump to throw Israel to the wolves so soon. Israeli media reports that Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy, is the one who forced Netanyahu to agree to the deal.

(As an aside, Witkoff has had financial dealings with global malign actor Qatar numbering in the hundreds of millions, possibly billions of dollars.)

Far more seriously from an international perspective, as with his Doha deal with the Taliban that needlessly betrayed NATO’s Afghan allies, Trump has shown himself to be a feckless and untrustworthy ally. We know he is going to force a similar surrender on Ukraine. This should send a rocket through Western militaries reliant on American support—which is no bad thing. A truly bad thing, however, is the message China will receive. As the Afghan shambles encouraged Putin in Ukraine, so this betrayal of Israel will encourage China to invade Taiwan. Globally, this deal places the world a significant step closer to World War Three.

We don't know if there is something going on behind the scenes, like a quid pro quo for the US to support an attack on Iran in exchange for this deal. But how the deal got to this point is indeed worrying.

The deal is no different than the deal the Biden administration has been pushing and Israel has been rejecting. Bibi was prepared to push back against Biden but he does not want to do the same against Trump. It appears that Trump did not care much about the details of the deal, he just wants to get American hostages home and gave Witkoff a lot of latitude as to how to get there - and that pushed Israel from the "destroy Hamas" priority to the "release hostages" priority.

It is a strategic blunder.

We don't know what we don't know, and maybe Israel has an ace in the hole to ensure that Gaza can never return to October 6 Gaza. From what we do know, the deal negates most of Israel's strategic gains in Gaza. We still don't know exactly how the Philadelphi Corridor will be administered, how the aid will be vetted, how much of a buffer zone Israel will maintain, all of which are critical. At this point it seems unlikely. Somehow I also doubt that every prisoner has been implanted with an explosive next to their brains that can be remotely detonated.

We all want the hostages to come home, but not at any price. It is easy to say that the value of human life is infinite but every hostage deal puts a price on life whether we like it or not. This price is way too steep.

The deal all but guarantees the death and kidnapping of more Israelis (and Jews) worldwide in the future.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

ADL antisemitism global survey shows Muslim countries are still the most antisemitic - and getting worse

The ADL released its survey of global attitudes towards Jews in most (but far from all) countries.

As it always does, the ADL asks people whether they agree with a series of 11 classic antisemitic tropes. Only those people who believe in a majority of them are considered for the calculations of this index. So there are plenty of people who harbor several antisemitic attitudes that do not get counted as antisemites in this survey.

The single most common factor to determine whether a country is antisemitic is whether it is a Muslim country. Not region, not socio-economic status, not politics - simply the majority religion.

There is also reason to believe that antisemitism in Western democratic countries is undercounted, because liberals are conscious of looking antisemitic. Directly asking whether they believe Jews have too much influence in world affairs is likely to make people not want to appear antisemitic. So surveys in Western countries do not capture the embarrassed antisemites, and other surveys that use more subtle methods must be used.

Here is a chart comparing the 2014 and 2024 scores for Muslim-majority countries and territories.(Several countries, like Pakistan and Syria, were not surveyed.)

Nigeria had a low score, comparable to Western democracies, in 2014 - but its score nearly tripled this time.

Indonesia also showed a huge jump in antisemitic attitudes from one of the most tolerant Muslim countries to one of the least.

But even already hugely antisemitic places like the Palestinian territories, Kuwait, Jordan and Egypt saw antisemitic attitudes get significantly worse.

Notice that peace agreements with Israel do not seem to bring a lessening of antisemitism in the UAE or Bahrain, It did go down in Morocco, but I've seen a long-standing effort by the Moroccan government to mainstream Jews and Judaism among the public.

Finally, the most under-reported story is Palestinian antisemitism. They are consistently the most antisemitic people in every survey, and the media simply refuses to report that fac - out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia."

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

01/14 Links Pt2: Reality Is ‘Zionist Propaganda’; Why Israel’s enemies hate cartology; The Democrats’ Anti-Israel Future; ADL poll shows nearly half of adults globally harbor Jew-hatred

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: Reality Is ‘Zionist Propaganda’

After the new year, the theater chain Alamo Drafthouse began showing September 5 in Brooklyn. Many of its own employees, organizing under its union, were outraged. They petitioned their employers to stop showing the film. Alamo appears, as of this writing, to have ignored them.

But it’s the petition itself, which of course soon garnered signatures from all manner of local organizers, that has to be read to be believed. Calling the film “Zionist propaganda,” it reads, in part:
“Echoing the well-worn pattern seen since 9/11, September 5 is yet another attempt by the Western media to push its imperialist and racist agenda, manufacturing consent for the continued genocide and cultural decimation of Palestine and its peoples. It is quintessential Orientalism: Depicting Arabs and brown people as evil, antisemitic terrorists, while lionizing the very newsrooms that provide political cover and, in many cases, cheer for endless wars and genocide. We’re certain that Alamo’s quirky pre-show won’t provide this context.”

The movie “depicts” Arabs as “antisemitic terrorists”? The movie is about an actual event, in which Arab anti-Semitic terrorists carried out murderous acts of terrorism. What’s more, the film is about the coverage itself—because a fair amount of what happened was broadcast. People watched it. This was a historical event that happened, like the moon landing.

More from the petition: “We, NYC Alamo United, wholeheartedly condemn the Alamo’s willingness to profit off of the genocide of Palestine.”

So we have two principles undergirding the opposition to the film. The first is that literal history as it happened is “Zionist propaganda,” and the second is that any depiction of Israelis or Palestinians is “profit[ing] off the genocide of Palestine.”

As to the first principle, I happen to agree. Reality is very harsh to the modern Western left’s anti-Zionist narrative, and it is very kind to the position of the Jewish state. As was the case when pro-Palestinian activists picketed showings of footage from Oct. 7 filmed by Hamas themselves, it is very difficult to see Palestinian terrorists as victims if you know what actually happened.

As to the second, I’m afraid the wider entertainment world has certainly adopted a pose that does not agree with the premise but abides by that premise’s preferred policy: It’s just too much trouble to show films or publish books with Jews in them, especially Israeli Jews.

After all, the Toronto International Film Festival, The Hollywood Reporter’s Scott Feinberg noted in September, found itself in just such a predicament:
“My understanding is that TIFF outright rejected September 5, which was the hottest sales title that played at the Venice and Telluride film fests — and, THR reported this morning, has landed at Paramount — ostensibly because it might generate controversy related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So, fearing a backlash, the fest did not screen a film that is going to get a best picture Oscar nomination and maybe even win — it could have done so on opening night, which was, appropriately enough, Sept. 5 — but did screen Russians at War, a documentary thats sympathetic portrayal of Russians involved in the Ukraine conflict did result in protests of such a scale that the fest ended up pulling the film.”

The great hope for the future of art in America is that bigoted censors make arguments that are too absurd for even corporate chains to take seriously, thus delegitimizing the entire outrage industry. In that sense, the reaction to September 5 is off to a good start.

Why Israel’s enemies hate cartology

Enemies of the Jewish state hate cartology—the study of mapmaking—as the world was reminded again last week in the commotion over a map of biblical Israel.

Some Israel-hater noticed that the X (Twitter) account of the Israeli Foreign Ministry included a map showing the biblical borders of the ancient kingdoms of Judea and Israel, including the parts that extended eastward across the Jordan River.

The text asks, “Did you know that the Kingdom of Israel was established 3,000 years ago?” The answer is that, unfortunately, most people do not know that because the facts about the boundaries of the Land of Israel are one of those topics that mainstream media outlets and left-leaning professors never discuss.

The text also mentions King David and King Solomon, and other personalities and events from the biblical period. The Washington Post and the history faculty at Columbia University don’t like talking about this for good reason; they remind us that Israel’s roots in the Holy Land are deep and strong, reaching back literally thousands of years.

The foreign ministry post concludes with another simple statement of fact: “The Jewish people in the Diaspora continued to look forward to the revival of their powers and capabilities and the rebuilding of their state, which was declared in the State of Israel in 1948 to become the only democracy in the Middle East.”

Hysterical comments about the map quickly erupted across the Arab world.

Jordanian leaders were especially overheated in their response. Jordan’s Foreign Ministry said it “condemns in the strongest terms the maps of the region” posted by the Israelis because they include territories that they “claim are historical for Israel, including parts of the occupied Palestinian territories, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.”

Those maps are “racist,” the Jordanians added, using what is fast becoming the most overused word in the English language used to attack Israel. Actually, the maps are exactly the opposite of racism since Israel is a multiracial state in which all groups are treated equally, by contrast with the Arab world, where blacks are victims of genocide (Sudan), are enslaved (Mauritania) and are massacred if they even approach the border in the hope of entering (Saudi Arabia).

Moreover, Israel does not have a law mandating the death penalty for selling land to members of a particular ethnic group, but the Palestinian Authority does—and that group is the Jews.

The speaker of the Jordanian parliament, Ahmad al-Safadi, said the maps “express a criminal mentality and malicious ambitions that cannot be ignored or tolerated.”

Not to be outdone, the P.A. declared that it rejects “alleged maps of historical Israel that include Arab lands.” Official P.A. spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh blasted the “alleged map with a comment fabricating an Israeli history dating back thousands of years in line with the Hebrew allegations.”

The Democrats’ Anti-Israel Future

THE 2024 ELECTION left the Democrats “considering how to navigate a dark future,” said the New York Times. Voices from the progressive wing instantly made clear that one matter at issue will be the party’s stance toward Israel.

The Democrats’ traditional friendliness to the Jewish state had resonated in the words of President Joe Biden’s immediate reaction to Hamas’s invasion and massacre of October 7, 2023. “This was an act of sheer evil,” he pronounced. “Israel has the right…in-deed has a duty to respond… . If the United States experienced [the likes of this] our response would be swift, decisive, and overwhelming.” He said that the U.S. was “surging military assistance” and had moved a carrier strike group and additional fighter aircraft to the area. “The United States has Israel’s back. It’s as simple as that…. We’re with Israel.”

Yet, over the ensuing weeks and months, it proved not as simple as that. Biden grew increasingly focused on protecting Gazan noncombatants and on restraining Israel in other ways. Vice President Kamala Harris, to whom he passed the Democratic standard in withdrawing from the 2024 election, was still more assertive in that direction, as was, to an even greater degree, her chosen running mate, Tim Walz. Their apparent predispositions, and the political currents within their party, prompted CNN political analyst Ronald Brownstein to muse, “Biden could be the last Democratic president for the foreseeable future who aligns so unreservedly with” Israel.

As Biden takes his bows, will the Democrats continue to pull away from Israel? Let us consider the background. Both parties have shared in America’s traditional friendship with that state, but each has done so unevenly. Among the Republicans, Eisenhower was quite unfriendly; Bush 41 was chilly; Nixon was, too, but provided critical aid during the Yom Kippur War. On the other hand, Reagan, Bush 43, and Trump were all warm supporters.

The Democrats had been more consistently friendly. Truman granted recognition to the reborn state, defying his advisers; Kennedy coined the “special relationship”; Johnson elevated the degree of military aid to Israel; Clinton worked furiously to broker a two-state solution and blamed Yasir Arafat when it was not achieved. Even Jimmy Carter, who was viscerally hostile, nonetheless brokered the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

And then, in 2008, came Barack Obama. He differed from the others in background not only by the epochal fact of being our first black president. He had dabbled in radical ideas as a student, then launched himself into a career as a “community organizer, and turned to politics only, he said, as a different path to the same goals. His rise marked a shift in tone, spirit, and perhaps the long-term direction of his party affecting a range of issues, not least Israel.

The priority of his foreign policy was to improve relations with the Muslim world, which he believed had been needlessly alienated from the United States by George W. Bush’s Global War on Terror. To demonstrate a new sensitivity, he gave his first presidential interview not to the New York Times or CNN but rather to the Arabic-language network Al Arabiya. The first foreign parliament he addressed was Turkey’s, and he later named Turkey’s Islamist prime minister (now president), Recep Tayyip Erdogan, as one of five foreign leaders with whom he felt closest.

Two months later, he delivered a major address in Cairo, saying:
I’ve come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.

While in the region, Obama also visited Saudi Arabia, his third Arab capital, but pointedly did not visit Israel, 37 minutes from Cairo by air. He told American Jewish leaders that his goal was to put “daylight” between himself and Israel in a way that his predecessors had not done. “When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states,” he explained. He aimed, said the Washington Post, “to restore the United States’ reputation as a credible mediator …[by] talk-[ing] tough to Israel, publicly and privately.”

In all, he visited more than 40 countries during his first term, some two or three times, but didn’t bother to visit Israel until 2013—during his second term.

Yet all this “daylight” yielded nothing in the peace process, which is not surprising because it was not Israel that was sitting on the sideline. Only months before Obama’s inauguration, Israel’s then–Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sought to bring to fruition a series of secret negotiations with Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas by presenting an offer that aimed to meet Palestinian goals on every issue.

01/14 Links Pt1: No final answer from Hamas regarding hostage deal; Hegseth: ‘I support Israel destroying, killing every last member of Hamas’

From Ian:

Seth Mandel: The Deal: A Guide for the Perplexed

What’s good about this for Israel:
—The reunions of more than two dozen hostages with their families is obviously top-of-mind. The country has been tormented for fifteen months over its missing, during which time Hamas’s cruelty has been boundless. Hostages have been tortured, abused, starved and humiliated—children and adults alike—and many of their families have been left to wonder if they are even still alive. Unlike Hamas, Israelis so value the lives of their fellows that every returned captive brings some relief to a suffering country.

—Israel will also have delivered for Donald Trump, whose envoys bulldozed all Israeli concerns so that he could begin his second term with a win. Delivering for an incoming president rather than an outgoing president means Israeli leaders believe (or live in hopes) that their concerns on other regional issues will be heard. That could mean an improvement in the flow of U.S. arms and aid, cooperation on limiting or destroying Iran’s nuclear program, support for Israel’s operations in Syria and Lebanon, Saudi normalization, and a suitably aggressive posture toward the ICC and the UN as well as any countries that are tempted to join their extrajudicial harassment of Israel and Israelis.

—Retaining some control over the Philadelphi Corridor is crucial to preventing the resumption of smuggling routes underneath Rafah and into Egyptian territory. Holding buffer zones along the rest of the border means the Israeli communities in the “Gaza envelope” will be better protected and will facilitate the deployment of troops back into Gaza hotspots. So long as Israeli troops control both sides of all Israel-Gaza borders, those borders will be more secure than they have been, arguably since 1948.

—Any significant reduction in fighting, even if temporary, will boost Israel’s economy and relieve some of the strain on its 300,000 reservists.

What’s bad about this for Israel:
—The withdrawal of troops to a buffer zone will guarantee Hamas survives for now and coalesces support and recruits while it has the chance. In turn, that means the IDF will be back in the parts of Gaza it is currently leaving. The war goes on under the façade of “peace.”

—The honeymoon from conventional Western policy toward the Middle East is over. In Trump’s first term, he put together a team of envoys that questioned stale thinking and thereby facilitated perhaps the most important regional diplomatic breakthroughs since the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace deal. This team featured US Ambassador David Friedman, Jared Kushner, Jason Greenblatt and others. This time, Trump’s envoy is Steve Witkoff, who is content to carry the outgoing Biden administration’s policies across the finish line, which are based on the age-old—and failed—protection of Hamas’s legitimacy and a bias toward the status quo.

—Israel has agreed to leave the Netzarim Corridor, a road that bisects Gaza and enables the IDF to contain recurring spurts of violence from spilling over into the rest of the enclave. That corridor begins right near Kibbutz Be’eri, where Hamas terrorists slaughtered over 100 civilians and took thirty hostages in the early hours of its Oct. 7 invasion. Israel’s disengagement from the corridor will mean it is facilitating the return of Gazans to their homes in the north before many of Israel’s own citizens can safely return to their homes near Gaza.

—The release of violent Palestinian terrorists and inmates will represent security threats, boost loyalty to Hamas and in some cases Hamas’s manpower, and incentivize the taking of future hostages. Hostage-taking, in fact, will be seen as the only successful method of Palestinian “resistance” and the only consistent advantage that terrorist groups have over the West.

—Qatar, the longtime patron of Hamas, facilitated this deal, and in doing so, displayed the considerable influence it will have over a Trump White House.

What’s good about the deal for the Palestinians:
—The ability for many to return to their homes amid a reprieve in Gaza’s longest war. Israel will continue providing the strip with humanitarian aid.

What’s bad about it for the Palestinians:
—Hamas was the reason for the devastation in Gaza, and Hamas is being left in power, which means any reprieve is temporary.

~The survival of Hamas, even in a greatly weakened state, means Mahmoud Abbas will die without seeing the return of the Palestinian Authority to the territory it lost to Hamas. This means Hamas’s influence in the West Bank will surge despite Israel’s devastation of it. The Hamasification of the West Bank, in turn, would sound the death knell for Palestinian self-determination, since there will be no Palestinian party to negotiate with Israel and both Palestinian territories will slide into Iranian satrapy.

Will Palestinians Give Peace a Chance?

If there's ever going to be lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the Palestinians must do something they've avoided for nearly 80 years: accept the permanency and legitimacy of the Jewish state.

Since Oct. 7, most Israelis have become increasingly disillusioned when it comes to peace with the Palestinians. On the Palestinian side, a series of recent polls found that many Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank still believe Hamas was justified in carrying out their Oct. 7 assault. Moreover, Palestinians remain broadly opposed to the idea of a two-state solution, the favored approach of international politicians, scholars, and peace advocates for decades.

Since Israel's founding, the complete ideological rejection of any Jewish state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea has been a pillar of Palestinian identity. Treating Israel as anything but a blemish or temporary aberration that can and will be undone with enough determination would be sacrilege in many Palestinian homes. It is precisely this maximalist Palestinian ideology that is at the heart of the conflict.

Going forward, earnest diplomats and committed mediators who have continually avoided this long-held rejectionist view will need to wake up, get real, and have honest discussions with Palestinians. As a first step, outsiders should resist the common knee-jerk reaction of dismissing hard truths. The deep-seated Palestinian vision anchored to endless struggle and never-ending resistance is what keeps the conflict going.

Unless the Palestinians finally acknowledge Israel's right to exist, no land, no new borders, and no other concessions will lead to lasting peace. Palestinians have the power to end the conflict - and it's time we recognize that.

Terrorist releases in exchange for hostages threaten even more Israeli lives

Many Israelis will say that the hostage release deal under discussion is sad but necessary—that it is the government’s moral obligation to free as many hostages as possible, as soon as possible, despite the high price, and that the suffering of our hostages and their families is intolerable on the personal and national levels.

Many will say that giving freed hostages a national hug will be the greatest triumph of all—something so necessary for Israel’s collective spirit and its resilience over the long term.

Many Israelis might feel this to be so even if the deal entails a near-total withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces from the Gaza Strip. In other words, even if Hamas retains power and survives to fight another day.

However one finesses the diplomatic and defense dilemmas here, there is one additional grand security calculus that seems absent from public discourse: the piercingly high price of releasing many Palestinian terrorists from Israeli jails which will be part of any deal.

The released terrorists assuredly will strike again with God-only-knows how many Israeli casualties in the future. Their release certainly will incentivize future kidnappings, pour gasoline onto the terrorist fires already raging in Judea and Samaria, and catapult Hamas toward its intended takeover of Judea and Samaria, too.

I know this because its has been the case with every previous terrorist release. Israel has repeatedly erred by letting terrorists loose to murder more Israelis.

Each time, in advance of every deal, the Israeli “security establishment” arrogantly and falsely has assured Israeli politicians and the public that it “would know how to manage the situation,” i.e., how to track the terrorists and crush any nascent return to terrorist activity without too much harm done.

But this has never proven to be true. Every deal involving the release of terrorists has led to more bloodshed, planned and carried out by these released terrorists.

Hey @IDF: Fix your website!

I and others have been frustrated by the IDF not being as responsive to queries from us and from reporters as we would like.

But many of the questions could be answered if the IDF website was updated, and easy to navigate. It contains lots of evidence of Hamas violating international law and the IDF adhering to it, but finding specific information is not easy for me, with an IT background. It is even worse for people who aren't conversant in searching sites.

One solution is to hire a librarian.

Library science is designed to categorize information and make it easy to find. A list of press releases is not necessarily the best thing to search on - finding everything about Shifa hospital would be much better. Librarians are trained to do this sort of thing. How hard could this be?

Also, keep things up to date. There is a mediocre page (not easy to find) showing evidence of Hamas use of hospitals from 2023, and it says it will be continuously updated with new information.

It never was.

Don't make promises you can't keep - and better yet, keep your promises!

Another way that might appeal more to the IDF is to add an artificial intelligence engine in front of the site so people can ask questions and get answers in plain language. There are plenty of AI products that can slurp up a database of disorganized information and answer questions. It would have to be well tested, of course, to make sure the AI is not saying anything that violates IDF positions or policies, but again - how hard can this be?

The war is now 15 months old. Even if there is a ceasefire, the cognitive war is still going to go on. Having a place where a reporter can ask "Show me evidence of Hamas activity in schools" would be priceless.

What is stopping the IDF from doing something that is such a no-brainer?

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

The San Diego Journal of International Law, Spring 2025, will include an article by Avraham Russell Shalev about siege warfare and the double standards of the international community towards Israel.

The abstract:

On October 9th, 2023, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant declared a “complete siege on the Gaza Strip” following Hamas’s attack on Israel. This siege, aimed at severing all supplies, quickly drew international condemnation from humanitarian NGOs and scholars, who argued it violated laws of war due to Gaza’s civilian population. Despite evidence of Hamas diverting aid, Israel faced pressure to lift the siege and allow humanitarian aid. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) took significant steps, with the ICJ mandating Israel to enable humanitarian assistance and the ICC seeking arrest warrants against Israeli leaders for war crimes, including “starvation of civilians as a method of warfare.”

This article explores whether the international response to Israel’s actions marks a shift in the legal standards governing siege warfare, potentially setting stricter regulations that could effectively ban the tactic in populated areas. It reviews the legal framework of armed conflict relevant to sieges, including The Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions, and examines recent Security Council Resolutions concerning the Syrian conflict. The article analyzes Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian obligations during the Gaza siege and considers any special duties Israel might have towards Gaza.

Additionally, the article discusses how recent ICJ and ICC developments may signal reduced tolerance for siege warfare, and the implications for future conflicts. By comparing the international acceptance of siege tactics in other conflicts, such as Fallujah, Mosul, and Marawi, the article argues that the criticism of Israel’s actions may reflect a double standard. It concludes by emphasizing the need for objective legal standards and cautioning against politicizing neutral legal rules.

The paper, after reviewing the relevant laws, concludes that siege is legal under specific circumstances:

Siege can be considered a lawful military tactic within the bounds of established armed conflict laws, such as distinction and proportionality. While besieging parties are not actively required to provide humanitarian aid, they are generally expected to permit third party relief efforts under appropriate conditions. The provision of humanitarian assistance is subject to the principle of military necessity but cannot be denied capriciously or arbitrarily. Humanitarian aid is conditioned on reaching its destination, with no serious concern for diversion or the enemy’s accrual of military or economic advantage. The besieging party may set the technical arrangements for the delivery of aid. The prohibition of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare refers to intentional starvation as the goal of the siege, as opposed to incidental deprivation in a siege aimed at weakening and defeating enemy forces.

Shalev notes that the South Africa ICC case says that a legal siege is really genocide. "While there are legitimate disagreements among states and jurists as to the exact contours of permitted siege under international law, South Africa has alleged that this military tactic is none other than genocide, the “crime of crimes” under international law."

His conclusion:

As seen in Fallujah, Mosul, and Marawi, siege tactics are sometimes employed when other military strategies could lead to even greater civilian harm. Restricting this tactic could require states to rely on more intense force, complicating operations within densely populated areas. Reevaluating siege as a military strategy might unintentionally encourage hostile groups to establish bases in urban zones, anticipating that the international community would be highly cautious about the civilian costs of such operations.

Concerns persist that the criticism of Israeli siege tactics represents a lex specialis directed solely at Israel, rather than a standard applied universally to other states in similar circumstances. Despite condemnations by the United Nations and various human rights organizations, major military powers have recognized siege warfare’s legality in other contexts, such as Fallujah, Mosul, and Marawi. While states and jurists may in good faith debate the specific boundaries of permissible siege tactics, these disagreements differ substantially from accusations of war crimes or genocide. The selective politicization of neutral legal standards risks undermining the international community’s credibility as impartial arbiters and may alienate states that feel subjected to inconsistent treatment.

Which is a polite way to say that the rules are different for Jews.

Buy EoZ's books on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)