Netanyahu: Hamas leader Mohammed Sinwar likely killed
"We eliminated tens of thousands of terrorists," Netanyahu said during a Wednesday evening press conference.
"We eliminated the leaders of the murderers Deif, Haniyeh, Yahya Sinwar," Netanyahu added, "and it appears we also eliminated Mohammed Sinwar."
Mohammed Sinwar is the brother of former Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, whom IDF forces cornered and killed during a training mission in southern Gaza on Oct. 16.
Mohammed Sinwar likely died on May 14 while staying at the European Hospital in Khan Younis, CNN reported.
London-based and Saudi-owned news outlet Asharq Al-Awsat cited two sources that said Mohammed Sinwar's family was notified of his death two days ago, according to The Jerusalem Post.
His likely death makes him the second Sinwar to lead Hamas and the family's third to die due to the war begun when the designated foreign terrorist organization attacked and killed some 1,200 Israeli civilians and kidnapped 250 others on Oct. 7, 2023.
Israel is poised to take full control of the Gaza Strip, Netanyahu told media during the Wednesday evening press conference.
"Our forces are seizing more and more territory in Gaza," Netanyahu said. "At the end of the move, all areas of the Strip will be under Israeli security control."
He said Israel is prepared to end the war upon the return of all remaining hostages being held in Gaza.
Ending hostilities also would require Hamas to disarm and overthrow its leadership while President Donald Trump's plan for peace in Gaza is implemented, Netanyahu said.
"Anyone who calls on us to stop the war before these goals are achieved is calling on us to leave Hamas in power," he told reporters.
Netanyahu addressed the media as the IDF continued its Operation Gideon push to eliminate Hamas in Gaza.
"The IDF struck more than 115 terror targets throughout Gaza from the ground, sea and air," the IDF said Wednesday in a post on X.
"The targets included launchers, military structures, tunnels, terrorist cells and additional terrorist infrastructure sites."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Michael Goodwin: The 2-state delusion must be scrapped — a ‘jihadist' state would solve nothing
Just months after Adolf Hitler started World War II, Winston Churchill smartly summarized why Europe's hopes for peace had been shattered. 'An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last,' the new prime minister said in a speech. His stark imagery mocked the foolish efforts to head off war, infamously led by Churchill's predecessor, Neville Chamberlain, who insisted Hitler really wanted peace. Chamberlain was delusional and the global conflict that followed turned his name into a permanent warning about the wages of weakness. Yet here we go again, with the current leaders of Britain, France and Canada falling into the trap. Their delusion is that Palestinians, including Hamas and other terror groups, really want peace and will live in harmony with Israel once they have a nation of their own. The clamor for a Palestinian state is the appeasement of our times. It travels under the disguise of a 'two-state solution.' Who can be against a solution? 'River to the sea' Except a Palestinian state wouldn't solve anything. Quite the opposite, it would set the stage for another round of bloodletting. As such, think of it as the two-state delusion. That's what it is because too many Islamists, from Iran to Arab lands and around the world, remain committed to destroying the Jewish state. They don't want to live in peace with Israel. They want to eliminate it. That's the essence of the antisemitic chant heard on American college campuses: 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.' Translation: Palestine will be free of Jews, and Israel will be no more. That isn't a problem at the Jew-hating United Nations, which held a two-day conference on the topic last week. Prime Minister Keir Starmer calls Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky from his office. It was little noted that Palestinians already have a state of their own. Instead of living in peace with their Jewish neighbors, they turned Gaza into a terror state. Nearly two years after their barbaric invasion of Israel, and while they continue to hold some of the 250 hostages they took on Oct. 7 of 2023, the push to give them a nation isn't just foolish — it's obscene. As President Trump correctly said last week, 'You're rewarding Hamas if you do that. I don't think they should be rewarded.' Thankfully, he added that the US is 'not in that camp,' referring to support for a Palestinian state by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney. Each is beset by radical Islamist immigrants, and so their pandering illustrates Churchill's observation about feeding the crocodile in hopes of being spared. They are aided and abetted by the Western media outlets that have fallen for the two-state ruse. 'A Hamas state' Typical is the nakedly anti-Israel coverage of The Associated Press, which described the UN conference as a serious bid 'to end one of the world's longest conflicts.' It claimed 'the plan would culminate with an independent, demilitarized Palestine living side by side peacefully with Israel.' That's a fairy tale, and at least deserves the caveat that it would be necessary to enforce a peaceful Palestinian state to guarantee Israel's security. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Getty Images Good luck persuading the Israelis that their security can be outsourced to the United Nations. Jews there and around the world have said for decades: 'If Palestinians lay down their guns, there will be peace. But if the Israelis lay down our guns, there will be no Israel.' The Jewish nation's Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar said last week that Israel would not cave in to the 'international pressure.' 'Establishing a Palestinian state today is establishing a Hamas state. A jihadist state,' said Sa'ar. 'It ain't gonna happen.' The only positive development to come out of the conference was that the Arab League, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan and Turkey, condemned for the first time Hamas' 2023 invasion and called on the terrorists to release all hostages, disarm and end their rule of Gaza. But even that progress was undercut by a tone of both-sideism that included outrageous attacks on Israel because of how it responded to the invasion. The final declaration also urges Israel to cooperate with UN agencies, including UNRWA, whose employees openly fanned the flames of Hamas terror. It also defends the Gazan Health Ministry, which acts as a Hamas mouthpiece in distorting Palestinian casualties. 'Right of return' farce Worse, the conference supported the Palestinians' so-called 'right of return' to places in Israel they left or were expelled from during the 1948 creation of Israel. That would undermine Israel's security and its existence as a Jewish state. My view about the push for a Palestinian state is informed by 25 years of covering the topic. In the summer of 2000, I was on my first trip to Israel just before its Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, and Palestinian chairman Yasser Arafat were scheduled to meet with President Bill Clinton at Camp David to iron out the terms and boundaries of such a state. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The American Embassy had helped arrange an interview for me with a top aide to Arafat in Ramallah, the de facto capital of the West Bank. The night before the interview, the late Martin Indyk, then the US ambassador to Israel, suggested a question I might ask. It ran something like this: If Arafat can't accept the 92% of the West bank Barak's government is offering, how would Arafat feel when a more conservative government offers as little as 72% of the West Bank? When I asked the question, the Arafat aide responded with a phrase he'd used in response to other questions about Arab violence. 'Well, you know,' he said, 'there are these groups we can't control.' He didn't name names, but his meaning was clear: There will be violence against Israelis, but don't blame Arafat because he can't stop it. No partner in peace It was a convenient lie, but the terror leader obviously feared for his own life if he signed a deal. Much to the shock of Clinton and Barak, Arafat walked away from Camp David without accepting a Palestinian state. Since then, several Israeli governments have made similar offers of a Palestinian state. All have been rejected in part because of the Sadat example. Recall that Egypt's bold leader, Anwar-el Sadat, was assassinated in 1981 by Islamist extremists two years after signing a peace treaty with Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin in a process facilitated by President Jimmy Carter at Camp David. Sadat and Begin shared the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize. Yet 47 years later, there is still no Palestinian state because no Palestinian leader has felt safe enough to recognize Israel's right to exist in its own secure borders. Hamas has made it clear it will never accept Israel. Its leaders have promised that given the chance, the horrors of Oct. 7 will be repeated again and again. The threats prove that a point Israelis have made about Palestinians still prevails: We have no partner for peace.
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
Can Israel Win its War in Gaza? - Opinion: Free Expression
While Israel continues to achieve great military successes against Hamas, Hezbollah and most recently Iran in its almost two year campaign, the humanitarian consequences of the conflict in Gaza are growing worse. There is growing evidence of famine throughout Gaza, caused by disruptions in the delivery of aid, and both sides are being accused of causing the crisis. International pressure on Israel is mounting. Last week, Emmanuel Macron of France announced he would recognize a Palestinian state and Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, has said he could do the same in September. So can Israel effectively finish its war in the face of the human cost and growing international isolation? Full Transcript This transcript was prepared by a transcription service. This version may not be in its final form and may be updated. Speaker 1: From the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal, this is Free Expression with Gerry Baker. Gerry Baker: Hello and welcome to Free Expression from the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal. I'm Gerry Baker, editor-at-large of the Journal. If you're not already subscribing to Free Expression, please do at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you do your listening. This week, Israel once again finds itself under intense international pressure as it continues to prosecute the wars against its enemies after almost three years of a multi-front conflict that started when the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas murdered more than a thousand Israelis and took hundreds hostage. Israel again faces something of a watershed war. The Jewish state has so far prosecuted that war incredibly successfully. Initially, of course, pounding Hamas in Gaza, then neutering Hezbollah in Lebanon, and most dramatically of course, in the last few months, delivering massive blows against Iran, the sponsor of anti-Israeli and indeed wider terrorism. But as it continues to try to press the war against Hamas in Gaza, it continues to struggle to complete that war, both because of the immediate challenges of fighting in the difficult circumstances it finds itself in Gaza and also because of the inevitable humanitarian consequences of that war. The most dramatic of those that we've seen in the last few weeks. Concern growing evidence of famine in Gaza, real evidence of starvation caused by the disruptions to the delivery of humanitarian aid. International opinion, of course, is rarely favorable to Israel, has turned even more hostile in the light of this evidence of a new humanitarian crisis. And though Hamas has proved itself expert at manipulating circumstances extraordinarily well, both domestically in Gaza and of course with international opinion, and indeed of course we can all agree Hamas should be ultimately responsible for all of the suffering that's taking place in Gaza. It is also true that even many friends of Israel are starting to express growing concern about the delivery of humanitarian aid and about the genuine crisis that exists. President Trump this week talked about real evidence of starvation going on there. There's been criticism from within Israel itself about the way in which Israel is preventing food from being distributed. So at the same time, of course, this international pressure is reflected in activity around the world. Emmanuel Macron, the French president last week said France was ready to recognize a Palestinian state. Keir Starmer, the British prime minister, who's been meeting of course with Donald Trump this week in Scotland, indications that he will commit Britain to the recognition of Palestine. These leaders are under intense domestic political pressure in the context of what's going on in Gaza. And of course, they are extremely unpopular at home and looking to alleviate some of their political problems. They seem to think obviously, that this diplomatic move would somehow solve that even though there's not much evidence that it would achieve really anything in terms of the recognition of a Palestinian state. So where does all this leave Israel's war against its enemies? The enemies who would destroy it? Can it continue to prosecute this war in Gaza to the desired conclusion of the destruction of Hamas? What's the wider picture for Israel? Is Israel going to have to accept less than optimal settlements? Could we really end up with a two-state solution as many of the world's leaders insist is necessary? I'm delighted to say I'm joined this week to discuss all this by one of Israel's most prominent and eminent journalists and commentators. Nadav Eyal is the winner of the Sokolov Award, which is Israel's equivalent of the Pulitzer Prize. He writes columns for Yeret, Aharonot, and Ynet, Israel's most widely circulated newspaper and news website. He's the author also of many articles and indeed a book he wrote, the bestseller, Revolts: The Worldwide Praising Against Globalization published in 2021. And I'm delighted to say that Nadav Eyal joins me now from Israel. Nadav, thanks very much indeed for joining Free Expression. Nadav Eyal: Thanks for having me, Gerry. Gerry Baker: Nadav, just start, if you would, just telling us what the debate is like in Israel. We're obviously following it from a distance from around the world. Once again, as I said in my introduction, there's mounting pressure on Israel, particularly over this issue of the distribution of food aid and the mounting concerns and evidence of starvation. But yet the Israeli government continues to insist that it is achieving its objectives and can continue to achieve its objectives by prosecuting the war in Gaza. Give us a sense of what the domestic political debate is about the war currently about this issue over starvation and what people want to see happen next. Nadav Eyal: So I think that we had a watershed week here in Israel in the sense that for the first time since the beginning of the war, the humanitarian condition in Gaza became number one topic in the news. And of course this didn't happen because of international aid groups saying what they were saying, but mainly because of reports coming from the Gaza Strip to some extent, to a very real extent, I think, delivered by Israeli journalists that were speaking with their sources in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian sources of course. And they have continued speaking with them since the beginning of the war. And for me, as someone who's not covering the Gaza Strip on a daily basis, I'm a columnist for Yadot and Weinert. It's not my beat, but I saw one Israeli journalist who I really respect, (foreign language). And he was interviewing a Palestinian source in Gaza who's actually in opposition to Hamas. And he was saying that he's hungry and he was quoting the food cost, just the market cost for one kilogram of flour in the Deir al-Balah market. And for me as an Israeli, the minute I heard that one kilogram of flour in that local market in the central Gaza Strip is now being sold for more than a hundred shekels, that means about $30 per kilogram. Immediately hearing that it was clear that these are prices that will lead to hunger and to famine. And together with the reports coming from Gaza about people dying of starvation and the international outcry, that made it front page news, just the humanitarian issue, not only the international response. And as a result, of course the government can say whatever they want in their public statements, but they changed policy in a week. They changed policy for the first time since the beginning of the war. The government is now allowing humanitarian pauses across the Gaza Strip something that Israel didn't allow since October 7th, unless it's a ceasefire. Gerry Baker: How are those pauses supposed to work and what's the idea? Is it just to replenish the supplies of food, as you say, which have become so scarce, the prices have come up so that Israel can then resume its operations? I mean, what's the long-term plan for alleviating this, as you say, what is pretty clear now is a serious humanitarian crisis? Nadav Eyal: Well, first of all, the assumption that they have a plan I'll need to push back against this. Right now, they're just tackling with the crisis. And to some extent, this crisis is of course related to two major mistakes that Israel made. And I'm using the term mistakes because I'm not going to delve right now into some moral judgments. We can do that, of course. But just tactically speaking, these were big mistakes for the Israelis. The first mistake was of course, that Israel stopped all food and aid supply to the Gaza Strip between March 2nd and May 19th in a formal cabinet decision. And this was actually the government, to some extent, surrendering to demands made by Smotrich and Ben-Gvir and the far right ministers. And I think the idea there was to try and pressure Hamas to get to another deal, another ceasefire deal. And that as of itself, of course, created in the Gaza Strip a lot of demand. Now granted during the ceasefire January, March, huge amounts of food and aid got in the Gaza Strip and Israel wasn't limiting it at all. By the way, Israel said since the beginning of the war, "We're not limiting food and aid to the Gaza Strip." After the first week of October 7th with all kinds of ministers making just empty threats. The truth is that the Israeli position all along were not limiting aid to the Gaza Strip at all. We're not using this as leverage. At least formally that was the position of the Israelis. Suddenly on March 2nd, it became the formal position of the government that they're not allowing any aid to the Gaza Strip. And they also assessed that because of the huge amounts of aid and food that came in during the second ceasefire, there's no need to that for at least four to six months. That was a mistake on many levels. And it became clear that as a result of that, food insecurity was created overnight. So even if you had food, you wanted to hoard as much food as you could, and the people who hoarded the food were both Hamas officials and of course traders in the Gaza Strip that could profit from it, profiteers, and all the rest, Gerry. So that led in about 70 days to a full-blown crisis that Israel reacted to on May 19th with allowing aid to go into Gaza again and having no deal. But by this time you already had a crisis of demand, and this is actually what we're seeing in these terrible images of people running to the aid distribution centers or getting on trucks and looting everything. It's all about demand, right? Gerry Baker: No, let me interrupt you because I do want you to come on to your second mistake, obviously, but of course there are those who said, and you've mentioned it yourself, that Hamas has been seizing much of this aid both to make the humanitarian situation worse, to bring all of that international pressure that we talk about on it, but also for its own purposes. To what extent is that accusation true that we can all agree that Hamas is certainly responsible overall for the humanitarian condition in Gaza because of what it did on October 7th. But in the current particular circumstances, the claim by many that there was food would've been available, but it's Hamas that seized it that's creating the problem. Nadav Eyal: Well, there it's a question of the truth lies in nuances most of the time, and I want to differentiate between two issues. The first issue is saying whether or not Hamas is taking control of the UN aid to the Gaza Strip, which is not as saying the aid to the Gaza Strip. This is something that people don't understand. Much of the aid that came into the Gaza Strip since October 7th was not facilitated by the UN, by different aid groups that are sometimes not the UN at all. And the answer to the question roughly speaking, is of course that Hamas is manipulating everything within the Palestinian society in the Gaza Strip. Hamas officials are definitely not starving and they're not hungry. They know how to use aid in certain areas. They have their branches of interference within the aid groups. If you do not cooperate with Hamas officials on the ground, whether you are a journalist, an aid worker and hospital, if you won't work with them, these are the people with the guns in those enclaves left in the Gaza Strip. I'll just give you, Gerry, one example because I mentioned prices, and one thing that people should understand about famine or about starvation in war conditions is that not everything looks and feels like Ethiopia during the 1980s. Or the type of crisis that we sometimes talk about. In this case, it's a matter of price. It's the market prices. And how are these controlled by Hamas? I'll just give you one example. So much of the money in the Gaza Strip, just the money flow in the Gaza Strip is assisted through apps, through applications on your mobile phone, and you get some aid or assistance not by getting cash, but as a family from getting a credit on an app. Then in order to actually buy food, you need to get it to get cash. In order to get cash, you go to a money exchange and these money exchanges are paying their taxes and are associated with the Hamas rule in the Gaza Strip. And here's the thing, Gerry, they're taking between 40 to 50% commission on your money in your app in order to get you some cash. And without that cash, you can't have food bought to your family. Gerry Baker: So who heads up with the 40 to 50%? Nadav Eyal: So of course the money exchange gets some food, but Hamas gets a lot of it. And this is exactly what they did with the aid last time. It's not that they stole the aid and opened a Hamas shop in the center of Gaza, sometimes it's being presented. They work their way as countries do through taxation and other means, and they profited from demand and they still profit from demand. And this is, by the way, one of the reasons I think that what Israel did was a mistake because if they profit from a demand, you need to make sure even just completely coldly speaking about the aims of the war without talking about what I think is essential, humanitarian issues and moral issues. You need to make sure that there is an overflow of food, material in the Gaza Strip, so they won't leverage this in order to gain more traction and actually get more funds. It's the assessment of the Israeli government that because of aid, and since the beginning of the war, Hamas has managed to garner at least half a billion dollars. That's the formal position of the Israeli government. Gerry Baker: And again, I think it's important to say exactly as you've said, Nadav, Hamas is expert at manipulating circumstances for its own benefit, especially to an often rather credulous international media. We saw just in this last week, we're learning more about some of these images of people. A famous image now of the young child who was starving, in fact, we're learning more and discovering that actually that child might well have been suffering from particular medical conditions. So again, we can absolutely acknowledge- Nadav Eyal: But that's classic examples. (inaudible) Gerry Baker: It's an example. Again, the media goes for that, but I take the point that there is a real humanitarian crisis there, and as you say, in your view, at least in part, caused by that critical Israeli mistake in terms of suspending food aid, essentially between March and May. Nadav Eyal: I just want to say something about these images because nobody cares, right? If there is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and then people bring an image of a very frail and sick looking child, of course it's being carried by everyone in the world from the New York Times and nobody cares about the truth. That according to CNN, I'm quoting now CNN, I'm not quoting the Israeli government, this specific child that you remarked as to his image is suffering from a muscular condition since birth and he's not healthy since birth. By the way, I want to say something about that. These kids and children need specific food. And one of the questions that, as a journalist, I'm trying to find out, to investigate, is there a scarcity in this type of food, for instance, because that is a legitimate question. But the fact that nobody would be interested and they would just connect the dots. The Gaza Health Ministry controlled by Hamas is saying that dozens of people have died as a result of starvation. "Let's bring a photo of a frail child who looks like he's being starved." And without bringing the entire story, this is exactly how we came to the position in which we came. But the second mistake that Israel made is that it actually assumed control of the entire humanitarian situation in Gaza Strip by deciding to support and push the idea of the GHF. The GHF is the Gaza Humanitarian Fund. It's an organization supported by... It's a humanitarian organization, but it's clearly supported by Israel and probably by at least elements in the United States, and they have a different way to distribute food. And the idea there was that Hamas won't take control of the aid and the food and won't profit from it because it's not going to go through the traders and the market. But each family would be able to come and take a box of food about, 18 kilograms, which should last about a week for a family of five or six people. And this was the idea in very rough terms. And by doing that, whether that is a good idea or a bad idea, a humanitarian organization said from the beginning, you don't want to ask the population to move and collect food outside of the population centers. The food should reach the population centers and not the other way around because it's dangerous. And I know this is not... In retrospect, this was said in real time. But the thing is that even by saying that, by Israel assuming that position, Israel was saying, "I am now responsible for the humanitarian aid and food assistance in the Gaza Strip." Because the Israelis were celebrating this as a solution, and if they're saying they're responsible, then Hamas immediately seized this opportunity. Israel was building its own trap in that regard because then it just opened the door to Hamas to say, "Israel is saying we're distributing food, or the GHF is distributing food. So let's say there isn't any food." It is just a classic ploy for them to do, and this is exactly what they're doing. Now, by saying that, I don't mean that there isn't a crisis right now in the Gaza Strip, there is a crisis, and I can explain how it was created. That was the first mistake, but this was a perfect moment for Hamas, and Hamas is using this moment to the extreme. Gerry Baker: I ant to take a short break there, but when we come back, I'll have more with Nadav Eyal talking about Israel's wars and what may come next. Stay with us. Speaker 1: You're listening to Free Expression with Gerry Baker. Don't forget you can listen to the latest episode anytime on your smart speaker. Just say, "Play the Opinion Free Expression podcast." Now back to Gerry Baker. Gerry Baker: Welcome back. I'm speaking with Nadav Eyal, one of Israel's most prominent and distinguished commentators and journalists, and we're talking about Israel's war in Gaza and the wider geopolitical context that Israel find itself in the Middle East. All right, before we move on to the wider question of the war and what comes next and some other matters, what's happening now? As you say, Israel is having these pauses for humanitarian aid to be dropped in. We've seen these images sort of overnight of food being parachuted into different parts of Gaza. You picked me up, you pushed back when I talked about a plan because you say there is no plan. Is Israel going to have to keep doing this? Are other countries going to get involved? What's the plan that Israel may have for continuing its efforts to destroy Hamas while at the same time trying to avoid the humanitarian catastrophe that seems to be unfolding with it? Nadav Eyal: So the first thing I think is obvious that Israel decided and Prime Minister Netanyahu, again, it's not my analysis. So commentary, one only needs to read what Prime Minister Netanyahu wrote in his X account last night. By the way, only in English, Jerry, only in English. Not in Hebrew, in which he said that the situation in Gaza is indeed difficult. He promised to continue on fighting against Hamas, but he was promising all different actions by Israel that are now being made in order to make sure that the situation in Gaza will improve. And just one of them is the humanitarian pauses. Others are opening humanitarian corridors, which actually means areas in which the IGF is not going to operate in fighting or fighting Hamas. Another one is easing the kind of monitoring that Israel had on some aid in order to make sure it doesn't fall to the hands of Hamas. Basically what they're doing, if we're talking about a plan, at least short term, is just flooding the Gaza Strip with food. That's the idea. And why are they doing that? Well, if you look at the scenes at the GHF distribution centers, and if you look at those convoys of the UN and other groups that are entering the Gaza Strip, everything is being taken or looted almost immediately. So the convoy of trucks, it just passes the border and it'll be almost immediately seized by thousands of Palestinians. So you can see the demand there. And in order to make sure that there isn't a humanitarian crisis of food at least, you need to have just more supply into the Gaza Strip. And Israel is working hard now in order to get as much as it can. It's also parachuting now or allow... Both parachuting itself, by the way, first time during the war or allowing the Jordanians then the Egyptians to parachute aid. This, by the way, just the people will know back in America or in Europe listening to this, parachuting means almost nothing. When you see parachuting aid, it's two trucks, So it means almost nothing. But the point is that you want the aid and the food to reach the population centers and not be hoarded somewhere else by people who are saying, "Maybe the war is going to resume. Maybe it's worthwhile to take that flour and store it somewhere until the prices will go up." So you want to flood the Strip. This is the first element. The second element is that the truth is that the prime minister still wants a deal, he wants a hostage deal, he wants a ceasefire. Now, this might change in the coming days, but if you ask me today based on my sources, what does the prime minister want here? And it's not about the plan, it's about what he wants. He wants a ceasefire deal with Hamas. One of the things that's happening right now is that Hamas is just overjoyed. He's overjoyed by the attention that this issue is getting worldwide, by the condemnations to Israel, by the way that Israel has been pushed. And for Hamas, this is a big deal. If they manage to improve the general situation of the Gaza Strip and get humanitarian pauses with no ceasefire and without returning any hostages. For them, this is just a big... They don't care about the population starving. And again, this is not my commentary. Hamas officials have said very clearly that they think that these sacrifices, the sacrifices of the civilians are worthwhile for the religious cause of freeing the entire Palestine. So for them, this is just almost ideal what's happening right now. Israel is caving in as far as they're concerned, more aid is going into the Strip. They have sort of ceasefires in certain areas, and now they can negotiate much more comfortably with Israelis, if at all. Gerry Baker: The large question here is there a military solution here that really will leave Israel stronger? Again, we've seen extraordinary successes by the Israeli military over the last two and a half years in Gaza, in Hezbollah, taking on obviously Iran, most notably. Obviously the particular challenge, and it's a classic challenge, Israel is by no means the first war fighting power to see... This when you are fighting an enemy, literally in the civilian context of Gaza, however much effort you make to limit casualties, and whether that be through your tactics or through, again, what we're doing with humanitarian aid. There will be large numbers of civilian casualties. Those will be exploited obviously by the enemy. They will be interpreted by your critics as a condemnation of what you're doing. And of course, they have the effect of only reinforcing, particularly among Palestinians, the sense that you are a hostile power committing genocide and all of these kinds of things, which only of course leads to further support for Hamas. We're all familiar with this. This is what the United States went through in Iraq, this idea that the war in Iraq is the greatest recruiting sergeant for America's enemies. And it does look as though however much military damage, which is clearly Israel has done to Hamas over the last three years. The political context is, if anything that... Again, we know a lot of the Palestinians are very unhappy, rightly with Hamas. But the political context seems to be that if anything, Hamas is certainly getting international support, but it's getting some domestic support too. How does Israel resolve this sort of classic dilemma that by prosecuting the war you run the risk that, however much military damage that you do, you will actually strengthen the standing and the morale of your enemy? Nadav Eyal: I think that this was not taken too much into account, and I'm speaking mildly, it's an understatement. I have to say, Gerry, that from my own conversations, I'm not sure that Hamas has strengthened that right now in the Palestinian arena in Gaza, and I'm speaking both with Palestinian sources, but also with aid groups and what they're hearing on the ground. Channel 12, which is the main kind of commercial Israeli channel, most popular Israeli channel, just aired the piece of 12 minutes of their crew in the Gaza Strip. Not the Israeli... Israelis journalists, foreign journalists can go into population centers in the Gaza Strip, but they probably used the Palestinian stringer to that. And they were asking people questions about the Hamas rule, and I guess they weren't... I'm not sure that that stringer was saying exactly that this interview is for this and that station. I have no idea. But people there we're saying very clearly what they think about Hamas in October 7th, and we're speaking about this as a mistake. And this is what I'm hearing too, but I think that there are two distinct levels here. The first level is the one that you mentioned, what is this going to do to radicalization across the region, specifically within the Palestinian society? And I think that your assessment that it's not going to be good for, let's say, the security of Israel long-term. I think that assessment is a good one. A second element is what does it do to Israel's standing in the international community? And I think they are... We can be much more clear that... I just saw Megyn Kelly, former Fox News host talking about how she supports Israel, but enough is enough and how Israel is losing conservatives in the US as a result of the war. Again, I don't see poll numbers right now in front of me, but I think that this sentiment is being definitely signaled by Israel's best friends in Washington DC who are right now mostly Republicans to the Israeli leadership. One thing I should say, the argument against that says, "Look, it's true, but if we don't win this, if the end of the October 7th story is that we hit Iran and we hit Hezbollah, and that was incredibly efficient. But a day will come in Gaza, in which Hamas would be able to have its victory rally and say, 'We in this tiny enclave managed to survive the IDF and everything that's being done, and they'll be able to have their terror state again.'" If this is the result of October 7th, that is the worst result that you could imagine. Specifically, by the way, because of the enormous cost to civilian life in Israel in the October 7th attack. And of course, frankly to civilians in Gaza too. And that argument goes, you need to end this with a decisive victory over Hamas or your existence in the region is endangered. And this is what Israel friends across the region like Egypt and Jordan, although they won't admit it, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and others, all of them won't admit it. This is what they want because what is Hamas? Hamas is a Muslim brotherhood organization, and for them, it's the clearest threat to their own governments and they want Israel to win. They definitely don't want it to win through mass civilian casualties. But if you're going to go to Israel's friends across the region and say, "After all of this, Israel didn't even manage to win against Hamas." So what's the long-term plan for Israel's security in the region? It's standing, it's deterrents and all the rest. That's the argument made by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Gerry Baker: I mean, I think I heard you make an incredibly powerful point in another interview earlier this week talking about this accusation against Israel of genocide, which again, I think most reasonable people can see is absurd. But nonetheless, it has its historical utility, particular utility for Hamas because again, the offensive and absurd, but nonetheless politically powerful historical analogy between the Holocaust, the real genocide of Jews, which ultimately led to the creation of the Jewish state and claim now that this so-called genocide against them is going to result in the same outcome for them. I wanted to move on to this Emmanuel Macron. It looks now like the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, we are hearing. Maybe about to come out in support of the Palestinian state. What do you make of this in terms of the diplomatic... The Wall Street Journal wrote a very good editorial the other day pointing out that Macron's call for a Palestinian state is sort of meaningless when there is no such thing and there's no reasonable way of understanding what it would even mean. But where does this fit in right now with all of this, with Israel's prosecution of the war, with the diplomatic conditions in which it finds itself? Nadav Eyal: So first of all, these leaders are playing to their own local audience, and they're definitely not doing this because they think it's going to shorten the war or it's going to really pressure Israel. What it does, and I'm saying this as someone who's been covering policymaking and the Israeli political arena for over 20 years now. It only strengthens the right wing initial because Israelis right now are... It's a consensus that they're not going to go for a territorial compromise considering that Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, took out the IDF from the Gaza Strip, and of course evacuated forcefully all its settlements and settlers. I was there, Jerry, in 2005. I was there for weeks, I've seeing people dragged from their houses in the disengagement of Ariel Sharon. So the idea that now you will have some sort of a forced solution, it's just playing into the Israeli far right and right wing saying, "Look at the world. Don't listen to what they're saying because now they don't only want to stop the war. They also want us to get some territories. This time much closer to Tel Aviv and get them to the Palestinians and do this by dictating to Israel what it should do." But it also assists Hamas. So if you speak with friends from our sources, from the Fatah, the ruling party that controls the Palestinian authority. To some extent, they want the Palestinian state or they're talking about Palestinian state, but they don't think it's a good idea that the way that it's going to go down in history is Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th. There was a terrible, terrible war in which Hamas, by the way, is killing unfortunately Israeli soldiers every week. You don't read about this in international press usually. You don't see those photos and images because this is never described as a war. This is described as Israel's onslaught on the poor civilian population in Gaza. And the truth is that Israel is fighting a very difficult war in which it has casualties last few weeks, every day. Every day. And the same channels of Hamas that are complaining on the humanitarian condition in Gaza are distributing the videos in which they show how they kill IDF soldiers in the Gaza Strip. So if you look at this from a purely political Palestinian viewpoint, what you see here is actually an incentive to the idea that an independent Palestine can be born only through massive violence against Israelis. And this is what these ideas are right now doing, both enforcing, I think Hamas and Islamic Jihad and also basically rewarding them, but also pushing that through the Israeli right, and far right. And now by saying that, I'm not saying that my own position isn't of a two-state solution. It's actually on my (inaudible) level with this. But what I'm saying is that unilaterally speaking, Macron is not really looking here to find the most efficient way to end the war or to advance peace, right? He's doing this because of his political standing and internationally, and I sort of suspect that it's the same case with Keir Starmer. Gerry Baker: They're under tremendous domestic political pressure. Again, let's come back to where we started, which is in Israel. And again, Israel is an incredibly vibrant and diverse democracy as we know. So trying to kind of capture the Israeli view is of course impossible. There are many, many views, but again, just tell us what the mood is. For three years now, we've seen the ups and downs of this war, the horror of October 7th, the extraordinary military successes Israel has had particularly this year against Iran doing things that many, many, until very recently, thought was possible. Now we've got this crisis, this watershed moment in the war. What's Netanyahu's support like? What's the state of the coalition? You've talked about again, some of these right-wing religious parties being strengthened by some of this international activity that's going on. Give us a picture just of where you think of what's likely to unfold in Israel itself as it continues to try to essentially secure its own future and its own existence over the next few months or so. Nadav Eyal: So first of all, the main question is, is there going to be a deal, Gerry, here? And that's a huge question. If there is going to be a deal, and again, I suspect the prime minister wants a deal, then we'll see hostages coming back. We'd see a ceasefire in Gaza. The soldiers would stop dying. If you are asking me what's the main thing that now troubles the Israeli public? It's not press being all over Israel, what they described as war crimes or crimes against humanity. Israelis are used to that. Since October 7th, by the way, since October 8th. What really bothers the Israeli public right now is the feeling that the war in Gaza isn't going anywhere, and that soldiers who are there on mandatory service or reserve service, meaning they can be your kids, they could be your neighbors or your family, that they're dying. And Israelis don't understand exactly what's the plan, which is exactly your question. Let's say there isn't a deal, does it mean that Israel tries to occupy the entire Gaza Strip? What would this mean to the fate of the hostages, which are the second issue? If the first issue is that soldiers are dying in the Gaza Strip by Hamas bullets and bombs, the second issue sometimes the first issue is the hostages. It's definitely the original issue of the war. And how will they be able to survive this kind of operation of the IDF if indeed ordered to take the entire Gaza Strip? And then there are a bunch of questions there. Humanitarially speaking, how do you make sure that this doesn't become an even wider disaster? I think that politically speaking, Netanyahu is back to square one. If before the war with Iran, his position was endangered, relatively weak in the Israeli public, although much stronger than in the first year of the war, still weak losing every poll. That the Iran war gave him an enormous boost. And what I'm saying now, again, is not my interpretation. I'm just looking at numbers. I'm going to publish them on my column this Friday of a new poll and it says that he's back to square one. He's back to his numbers from the beginning of May of this year, meaning nothing has happened in the Iran war. It didn't shift, it didn't tilt anything. The coalition is still incredibly unpopular. The Israelis, according to every poll I know that isn't by an affiliate of the government, are very untrustworthy of this government, are extremely critical. And this is a new thing. Many Israelis, although not the majority, definitely not the majority, are starting to see what's happening in Gaza as a disaster of itself. I'm talking about what's happening to Palestinians in Gaza. This is new. That it will be a topic of conversation in Israel, and that's also a change. In terms of making sure that Israel's existence is secured... I think that everybody is looking here for a fix, and that fix is to have a deal in Gaza that isn't just two-phase hostage deal, but an end to the war in which Hamas doesn't control the Gaza Strip, although it's going to be in the background. It's not preparing another attack against Israel. The hostages are back home and the Gaza Strip can start its rebuilding with the assistance of Saudi Arabia and the gulf countries and the world. And of course, Israel. I think that this is something that the US president, President Trump is looking for. I think that to a large extent, this is something that the same parts of the Israeli governments are looking for. I'm not talking about the far right and of course, the Palestinian authority. The only thing here is that Hamas, you come with this very rational idea of how this should look like, and you are dealing really with a fundamentalist organization. And it's very difficult sometimes to get that message out that I get reports on what was said in a crucial decision of Hamas leadership. And in the middle of that conversation that would sound lucid to you and me. And someone would say, "We'll use a prophecy or a verse in order to make a religious argument of deliverance. And to make that argument in order to push back against the idea of a ceasefire." Gerry Baker: Is some kind of a deal, as you describe, is it feasible? Nadav Eyal: I think it's extremely feasible in the sense that Hamas has already said that they're ready not to control formally the Gaza Strip. They're not willing to disarm. The Israelis are saying you need to disarm. They're willing to entertain the idea of exile. For some of its leadership, Israel demands more exile. I think that it's more of a change of mode for both the mediators and frankly for Israel to go for a full deal right now. And I think it's extremely feasible and it's relevant. Whether or not that's going to happen, I think it's very much is resting on domestic politics, both in Israel in terms of Netanyahu's coalition and the election day, and both in the region and of course within the Palestinian society and between the factions in Hamas that are right now arguing with each other as to the ceasefire. And that's one of the reasons we don't have a ceasefire. Gerry Baker: Nadav Eyal, Israeli commentator and journalist. Thank you very much indeed for joining Free Expression. Nadav Eyal: Thank you so much for having me. Gerry Baker: Well, that's it for this week's episode. Thanks very much indeed for joining us. I'll be back next week with another episode. In the meantime, have a great week and thanks for listening.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hamas denies it expressed willingness to disarm, slams Witkoff's Gaza trip
Hamas has rejected reports that it expressed a willingness to disarm during Gaza ceasefire negotiations with Israel, stressing that it has a 'national and legal' right to confront the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. The Palestinian group responded on Saturday to recent remarks purportedly made by United States President Donald Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, during a meeting with relatives of Israeli captives held in Gaza. Citing a recording of the talks, Israeli news outlet Haaretz reported that the US envoy told the families that Hamas said it was 'prepared to be demilitarised'. But in a statement, Hamas said 'the resistance and its weapons are a national and legal right as long as the [Israeli] occupation persists'. That right 'cannot be relinquished until our full national rights are restored, foremost among them the establishment of a fully sovereign, independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital', it said. Witkoff met the Israeli captives' families in Tel Aviv on Saturday, one day after he visited a US and Israeli-backed aid distribution site run by the controversial GHF in Gaza. Hamas had earlier slammed the US envoy's trip as a 'staged show' aimed at misleading the public about the situation in the enclave, where an Israeli blockade has spurred a starvation crisis and fuelled global condemnation. More than 1,300 Palestinians also have been killed trying to get food at GHF-run sites since the group began operating in the bombarded Palestinian territory in May, the United Nations said earlier this the Trump administration has stood firmly behind GHF despite the killings and growing criticism of the group's operations in Gaza. In June, Washington announced that it approved $30m to support GHF. Witkoff's comments on disarmament also come amid a widening international push to recognise a Palestinian state amid the scenes of starvation in Gaza. The United Kingdom announced at a two-day United Nations conference in New York this week that it may follow France in recognising a Palestinian state in September. Echoing an earlier statement by UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Foreign Secretary David Lammy said London would proceed with recognition if Israel did not meet certain conditions, including implementing a ceasefire in Gaza. The UN meeting also saw 17 countries, plus the European Union and the Arab League, back a seven-page text on reviving a two-state solution to the conflict. The text called on Hamas to 'end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority, with international engagement and support, in line with the objective of a sovereign and independent Palestinian State'. Solve the daily Crossword
