RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.jns.org/when-even-consensus-in-israel-is-contentious/

Consensus is so hard to come by in Israel that even when it exists, it’s a source of strife. The issue of the hostages’ rescue is a perfect case in point.

At this juncture, everyone agrees that all 50 captives—20 of them living—have to be freed together. In other words, no more partial deals that involve a Nazi-like selection process determined by Hamas.

Rather than alignment on this score, however, the protest movement is demanding that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu send a delegation back to the negotiating table to engage in talks over the very “Witkoff plan” that involves the return of half of the hostages in a phased ceasefire arrangement.

The backdrop, and the reason that Hamas suddenly expressed willingness to reconsider Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff’s previous blueprint, is the Cabinet’s decision to launch a major military operation to take over Gaza City—the terrorist group’s last stronghold in the Strip—and finally conclude the war. It’s important to note that the protest movement is also calling for an end to the war.

The way it’s doing this is through anti-government demonstrations. Anyone unfamiliar with the Israeli psyche might find this peculiar. After all, both the government and those who oppose it want all the hostages to come home in one fell swoop and for the war to finally be over.

Ditto for U.S. President Donald Trump, who declared last Monday on Truth Social: “We will only see the return of the remaining hostages when Hamas is confronted and destroyed. The sooner this happens, the greater the chances of success.”

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/21852/hamas-ceasefire-response

The Iran-backed Palestinian terror group Hamas said earlier this week that it has delivered a “positive response” to mediators on the latest US proposal for a Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal with Israel. The group’s leaders, however, continue to talk about the need to continue the “armed struggle” against Israel.

“Hamas and the Palestinian resistance factions will not lay down their weapons. We will continue to exert pressure on the Zionist enemy through the armed struggle. We met with the Palestinian factions in Cairo and agreed to escalate the confrontation and the struggle….. Resistance is the only way to confront the enemy.” — Mahmoud Mardawi, senior Hamas official, palininfo.com, August 15, 2025.

Mardawi does not live in the Gaza Strip. He and most of the Hamas leaders are based in Qatar and Turkey.

When [Hamas’s] leaders say the “armed struggle” will continue, they are actually threatening to launch more attacks similar to the October 7 atrocities.

If Hamas is indeed ready to accept a ceasefire, the reason is not because it wants to stop the death and destruction in the Gaza Strip. Rather, Hamas wants to ensure that it will be able to continue ruling the Gaza Strip after the war…. so it can pursue its jihad (holy war) to murder Jews and destroy Israel. This has been Hamas’s goal since its establishment more than three decades ago.

In the weeks before the October 7 attack, Hamas leaders went to great lengths to create the false impression that they were not interested in engaging in another war with Israel.

Hamas has not – and will never – give up its goal of eliminating Israel and replacing it with an Islamist state.

Even if a ceasefire deal is reached, the US and the rest of the international community must insist that Hamas be totally disarmed and removed from power. Hamas, unfortunately, really needs to be obliterated, and its leaders put on trial for committing war crimes against Israel and their own people.

The Iran-backed Palestinian terror group Hamas said earlier this week that it has delivered a “positive response” to mediators on the latest US proposal for a Gaza ceasefire and hostage deal with Israel. The group’s leaders, however, continue to talk about the need to continue the “armed struggle” against Israel. For Hamas, the “armed struggle” means launching more terror attacks against Israel and murdering as many Jews as possible. Hamas leaders, in addition, continue to stress that they refuse to lay down their weapons.

In a recent interview with Hamas’s unofficial mouthpiece, the Qatari state-owned television empire Al-Jazeera, senior Hamas official Mahmoud Mardawi said:

“Hamas and the Palestinian resistance factions will not lay down their weapons. We will continue to exert pressure on the Zionist enemy through the armed struggle. We met with the Palestinian factions in Cairo and agreed to escalate the confrontation and the struggle. What other choice do we have? Surrender? Gaza will not surrender. The Palestinian resistance sticks to its positions. Resistance is the only way to confront the enemy.”

https://x.com/SpencerGuard/status/1948010761957052628

John Spencer is chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute and host of the Urban Warfare Project Podcast. He served twenty-five years as an infantry soldier, which included two combat tours in Iraq. He is the coauthor of the book  Understanding Urban Warfare.

In his New York Times op-ed titled “I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It”, Omer Bartov accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza. As a professor of genocide studies, he should know better. Genocide is not defined by a few comments taken out of context, by estimates of casualties or destruction, or by how war looks in headlines or on social media. It is defined by specific intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group in whole or in part. That is a high legal bar. Bartov did not meet it. He did not even try.

I am not a lawyer or a political activist. I am a war expert. I have led soldiers in combat. I have trained military units in urban warfare for decades and studied and taught military history, strategy, and the laws of war for years. Since October 7, I have been to Gaza four times embedded with the Israel Defense Forces. I have interviewed the Prime Minister of Israel, the Defense Minister, the IDF Chief of Staff, Southern Command leadership, and dozens of commanders and soldiers on the front lines. I have reviewed their orders, watched their targeting process, and seen soldiers take real risks to avoid harming civilians. Nothing I have seen or studied resembles genocide or genocidal intent.

Bartov claims that five statements by Israeli leaders prove genocidal intent. He begins with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s comment on October 7 that Hamas would “pay a huge price.” That is not a call for genocide. It is what any leader would say after the worst terrorist attack in the nation’s history. He also cites Netanyahu’s statements that Hamas would be destroyed and that civilians should evacuate combat zones. That is not evidence of a desire to destroy a people. It is what professional militaries do when fighting an enemy that hides among civilians.

Bartov presents Netanyahu’s reference to “remember Amalek” as a smoking gun. But this is a phrase from Jewish history and tradition. It is engraved at Israel’s Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem, and also appears on the Holocaust memorial in The Hague. In both places, it serves as a warning to remain vigilant against threats, not as a call for mass killing.

He also highlights Defense Minister Gallant’s use of the term “human animals” to describe Hamas fighters. That is not a war crime. After the slaughter, rape, and kidnapping of civilians on October 7, many would understand or even share that reaction.

Unable to find intent among those actually directing the war, Bartov turns to far-right politicians like Bezalel Smotrich and Nissim Vaturi. These individuals do not command troops, issue orders, or shape battlefield decisions. I have studied the actual orders. They focus on destroying Hamas, rescuing hostages, and protecting civilians whenever possible. Their rhetoric is irrelevant to the legal case.

https://www.jns.org/israels-high-court-of-injustice-and-the-red-cross/

Israel’s High Court of Justice has once again revealed its misplaced priorities. And that’s putting it delicately.

In a hearing on Monday about National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s policy to bar Red Cross visits to Nukhba terrorists in Israeli prisons until the organization gains access to the hostages in Gaza, the judges made their outrage clear. But their fury was not aimed at Hamas or the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which has utterly abandoned its humanitarian mission. Instead, it was directed at their own government and prison authorities.

The ex parte session was spurred by a petition on behalf of the terrorists. It was submitted by the usual left-wing “suspects”: the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Physicians for Human Rights, HaMoked (the Center for the Defense of the Individual) and Gisha.

These NGOs pulled a typical fast one. They first acknowledged that “Hamas doesn’t provide information about those it holds in captivity, and refuses to allow Red Cross visits to the hostages … in Gaza [among whom] are those who were murdered in Hamas captivity.”

They then went on to get to the crux of their foul maneuver to equate victim and perpetrator, by stating that “Israel’s obligations toward those it holds do not change because of Hamas’s war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

As if Israel’s “holding” of mass murderers is comparable to Hamas’s “holding” of innocent captives.

Not surprisingly, Justice Yitzhak Amit, the self-anointed president of the Supreme Court, agrees with this twisted logic. But the reasoning that he proffered during the hearing went beyond woke politics to focus on his personal reputation and that of his hallowed perch in the international arena.   

“Right now, what’s … being publicized abroad [is] that there is starvation, that dozens of prisoners are dying, that it’s basically the Israeli Guantánamo,” he bellowed, banging on his table. “And you’re putting us, the court, at the forefront, on the front line.”

https://www.thefp.com/p/they-became-symbols-for-gazan-starvation

For the past several weeks, critics have fumed at The New York Times over a misleading photo of an 18-month-old boy in Gaza on its front page. It turns out that Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq, who was a symbol for a story about widespread hunger in Gaza, wasn’t simply suffering from malnutrition. He had pre-existing health issues “affecting his brain and his muscle development,” according to an updated version of the story. But that detail didn’t find its way into print.

When the so-called paper of record updated its story with an editors note four days later, it also quietly deleted the mother’s claim that her son was “born a healthy child.” There was still no mention of the boy’s brother, who appears healthy in the background of another photo that appeared online.

This incident wasn’t just a one-off.

An investigation by The Free Press reveals that at least a dozen other viral images of starvation in Gaza also lacked important context: The subjects of those photos have significant health problems. Those appeared all over social media, in the reports of leading international aid organizations, and on some of the most prestigious news outlets in the United States, including CNN, NPR, and the Times—without disclosing the complicated medical histories that help explain their stark appearances.

It’s not that there isn’t hunger in Gaza. There is. The World Health Organization reported 63 deaths from malnutrition last month alone, including 25 children. Some of them might have been sick or worse even if there was no war. In 2022, about 50 Gazans under the age of 20 died from malnutrition, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health.

Yannay Spitzer, an economist at Hebrew University of Jerusalem who has been tracking food prices in Gaza during the past few months, said hunger in Gaza is largely declining since Israel resumed aid deliveries in late May after its nearly 80-day blockade. During that period, prices for basic necessities like flour skyrocketed by 4,000 percent, according to his review of data from the Gaza Chamber of Congress and the World Food Programme.

“If a situation like that lasts more than a few days, a lot of people will go hungry but not starve to death en masse. That’s the beginning of a process, which the media portrayed as already at the catastrophic end stage,” Spitzer said, before pausing. “But it never happened.”