Israel, the UK and the world

Updated September 2, 2025

IDF call ups begin following stormy cabinet meeting

What’s happened: Emergency call up orders began to go into effect yesterday with 40,000 reservist soldiers mobilised. This is taking place as the IDF prepares to embark on a broad offensive operation into Gaza City.

Most reservists are not likely to enter Gaza. They are, rather, relieving soldiers in the West Bank and on the northern border who are slated to be a part of the upcoming operation, which will involve five divisions.
The Israeli government’s public position remains that only a comprehensive deal that would release all hostages could avert the operation. A stormy cabinet session was held on Sunday regarding the war in Gaza. Ministers did not vote on the ceasefire deal on the table, though Hamas appears to have accepted it. This deal would include a 60-day ceasefire and a partial release of the remaining hostages.
Belgium announced that it would recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly later this month. Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot also announced 12 “firm sanctions” against Israel, including a ban on importing products from settlement. Prevot’s announcement stipulated that the “administrative formalisation of this recognition” would only take effect “when the last hostage is released.”
Foreign Secretary David Lammy reiterated his commitment to recognise a Palestinian state “unless the Israeli Government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commits to a long-term sustainable peace.” He added, “To those who say recognition rewards Hamas or threatens Israeli security – it does neither,” without explaining how this was the case.
Alluding to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, Lammy said that “words of condemnation… are not enough. But be in no doubt: we have acted, as a country, where we can.” He went on to list actions taken by the Government: “We restored funding to UNRWA. We suspended arms exports that could be used in Gaza. We signed a landmark agreement with the Palestinian Authority. We stood up for the independence of international courts. We have delivered three sanctions packages, three, on violent settlers and far-right Israeli Ministers for incitement. We suspended trade negotiations with the Israeli Government. We are at the forefront of the international community’s work to plan for a stable, post-conflict peace. And we have provided nearly over £250m in development assistance over the past two years.”
None of this actions mentioned by Lammy is putting any pressure on Hamas to release the hostages or exerting diplomatic pressure for the October 7 attacks. Nor did he mention any action relating to states, allied with Britain, that harbour leading Hamas figures, such as Qatar or Turkey.
Lammy also announced the triggering of the “snapback” procedure for sanctions against Iran. These will go into effect in 30 days barring some diplomatic breakthrough with Iran.
320 trucks of humanitarian aid crossed from Israel into Gaza yesterday through crossings at Kerem Shalom in the southern Gaza Strip and Zikim in the north. COGAT reports that 350 trucks were collected and distributed by aid organisations yesterday, as opposed to 170 the day before, with hundreds more still waiting on the Gaza side of the border for collection.

Cabinet leaks: Multiple Israeli media outlets gave detailed reports of a stormy cabinet meeting on Sunday evening, all based on anonymous leaks.

It is understood that the heads of the IDF, National Security Council, Mossad, and Shin Bet strongly support accepting the ceasefire deal which would see the release of 10 out of 20 living Israeli hostages and a 60 day pause in fighting. The Prime Minister and most of the cabinet oppose this. All four men are Netanyahu appointees. The security chiefs all expressed severe doubts about the planned military offensive into Gaza City.
The IDF estimates around 100 fatalities to its forces in an operation to conquer Gaza City in an operation that could take as long as a year to complete successfully. Chief of General Staff Eyal Zamir told the Government that such an operation would necessarily mean a military government in Gaza, with all the attendant legal and operational obligations that would entail. Israel would be directly responsible for the welfare of Gazans in territory its forces occupy in a way it has not been since 1994. And its soldiers would be constant targets of guerrilla attacks.
Mossad Director David Barnea spoke out more forcefully than in the past in favour of the current ceasefire deal. He was quoted in television reports as saying, “That’s the proposal that is on the table, and we need to take it.”
Most of the media attention, however, focused on Zamir, with many harsh and pointed statements attributed to him or to his critics. Orit Struck, one of the most far-right figures in the Cabinet, obliquely referred to Zamir with a Mishnaic reference to “the man who fears and is soft-hearted.” Zamir responded to her, “I came to carry out two of my life’s missions: to prevent nuclear [weapons] in Iran and to destroy Hamas. Every morning I approve attacks everywhere. No one is soft of heart. If you want blind obedience, get someone else.”
Confronted by the Cabinet Secretary with Ministers’ demands to defeat Hamas, Zamir responded with a sarcastic Hebrew phrase that can be translated as “you don’t say?” or “good morning sunshine!” and added, “you were the security cabinet on October 7. Now you’ve remembered to talk about defeating Hamas?”
Various reports in the Hebrew press referenced Cabinet ministers who dissented from the majority position and preferred taking the ceasefire deal and partial hostage release now rather than embarking on the new offensive into Gaza City. Most reports mentioned Foreign Minister Gidon Saar as one of the opponents of the new operation, with concerns about Israel’s diplomatic position at the upcoming UN General Assembly attributed to him.

Looking ahead: In preparing a response to the upcoming announcements of recognition of a Palestinian state by France, Britain, Canada, and others, Prime Minister Netanyahu will convene a consultation on annexing parts of the West Bank.

The cabinet are expected to explore various proposals, including annexation of settlement blocs, of Areas C, or of the Jordan Valley. An initiative to annex the Jordan Valley was stopped in its tracks in 2020 by the announcement of normalisation agreements with Bahrain and the UAE.
The Jordan Valley stretches from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea, forming a natural border between the West Bank and Jordan. It is sparsely populated and serves as a vital buffer zone and holds strategic significance for Israel’s security.

July 30, 2025

UK to reward Hamas with recognition of Palestinian state

What’s happened: The UK Government announced that it will recognise a Palestinian state at the UN General Assembly in September unless Israel fulfils a list of conditions to ameliorate the situation in Gaza. Malta joined the UK announcement, and several other states, including Australia and New Zealand, indicated they might be inclined to join the initiative.

Speaking from Downing Street, Prime Minister Starmer said, “We are determined to protect the viability of the two-state solution, and so we will recognise the state of Palestine in September before UNGA; unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza and commits to a long term sustainable peace, including through allowing the UN to restart without delay the supply of humanitarian support to the people of Gaza to end starvation, agreeing to a ceasefire, and making clear there will be no annexations in the West Bank. We will make an assessment ahead of UNGA on how far the parties have met these steps. No one side will have a veto on recognition through their actions or inactions.”
At the United Nations, Foreign Secretary Lammy echoed the Prime Minister’s statement, including the conditions: “We will do it unless the Israeli government acts to end the appalling situation in Gaza, ends its military campaign and commits to a long-term sustainable peace based on a two-state solution.”
Both Starmer and Lammy demanded that Hamas release hostages, cease fire, and have no role in the future governance of Gaza, but neither made acceding to these demands a condition for recognition or, for that matter, any British policy move.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot praised the British announcement, saying “Together, through this momentous decision and our joint efforts, we are ending the infinite cycle of violence and re-opening the prospect of peace in the region.” It remains to be seen if indeed this decision has in fact ended the cycle of violence.
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the decision “constitutes a reward for Hamas and harms efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza and a framework for the release of the hostages.” Prime Minister Netanyahu posted on social media that “Starmer rewards Hamas’s monstrous terrorism & punishes its victims,” adding that “A jihadist state on Israel’s border TODAY will threaten Britain TOMORROW.”
Opposition Leader Yair Lapid was more concerned with the lack of seriousness in the French and British recognition declarations. Recognising a Palestine state, he said, “won’t make it come into existence. The problem is that they don’t ask themselves the fundamental questions: Within what borders? What is its capital? What leadership does it have? What system of government? Is it a democracy? Does it support the right of return? Does it have the means to deal with an attempt by Hamas to take over right after it is established?”
President Trump, for his part, said of the British decision, “If you do that, you really are rewarding Hamas, and I don’t think they should be rewarded.”
The British announcement follows the French government’s pledge to recognise a Palestinian state at the UNGA in September, and a host of European initiatives designed to pressure Israel to halt the war in Gaza — even with Hamas still in power and the Israeli hostages still languishing in its tunnels. These include a possible move by the EU to suspend Israel from the Horizon Europe program, a large and generously funded development program for scientific and industrial research.
Yedioth Ahronot reported that Israel and Germany are conducting intensive negotiations for a compromise that would see the Germans blocking such initiatives in exchange for Israel agreeing to an EU task force that would oversee compliance with EU demands regarding humanitarian aid into Gaza. Such a task force would determine if Israel has, as apparently agreed, doubled the entry of aid into Gaza or not, and if the task force is satisfied that it has, the various sanctions bruited would be suspended.

Context: Despite protestations from both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that “no one side will have a veto on recognition through their actions or inactions,” the stipulation that unless a ceasefire is agreed to the recognition will go forward grants just such a veto. All Hamas needs to do to ensure Britain recognises a Palestinian state is refuse to release any hostages. In fact, if Starmer and Lammy are taken at their word, any Hamas agreement now to even a partial hostage release and ceasefire would actually stymie the recognition effort.

This isn’t just a theoretical argument, but a recapitulation writ large of the diplomatic developments of the last fortnight. On July 23, Hamas and Israel were to finally sign off on a ceasefire agreement which would have liberated ten of the twenty living Israeli hostages after months of painstaking negotiations. But on July 21, Lammy and 28 other Foreign Ministers issued a combative statement against Israel’s war effort essentially granting all of Hamas’ demands for free. Unsurprisingly, Hamas immediately scuppered the ceasefire talks, raising new demands on July 22, and the ceasefire and hostage release never came to pass.
The recognition announcement follows weeks of intense pressure inside the Government and in Parliament for such a move, in both cases motivated more by anger at Israel than by any real assessment of the meaning of recognition or the dynamics of the conflict. States are normally recognised after they are founded. This recognition would be of a state that all acknowledge does not presently exist, even if many would very much like to see it come into being. For those so inclined, there is no reckoning with why exactly there isn’t a Palestinian state. Such a state could have been established at the end of the British Mandate following the UN partition resolution in 1947 or at any time during the Arab occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip between 1948 and 1967, but was not. It could have been established as a result of peace talks in 2000, 2001, 2008, 2014, but on each those occasions it was the Palestinians who rejected statehood because it could only be effected by a full reconciliation with a Jewish state next door.
The Foreign Secretary’s statement at the UN yesterday included the sentence “Hamas must never be rewarded for its monstrous attack on October 7,” but there is no way of understanding the British policy as anything but such a reward, and indeed it was publicly welcomed by Hamas. What the Palestinians refused to accept in peace negotiations, the UK is endeavouring to grant them without peace and following the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust.

Looking ahead: Israel has not made any announcement of steps it might take in response to the French and British moves.

Bezalel Smotrich, Finance Minister and leader of a far-right party in the Knesset pushed for a partial annexation of territory in Gaza. Even outside far-right and pro-settler circles in Israeli politics there have been voices calling for territorial losses to be used a lever to pressure Hamas.
The thinking behind this is that Hamas is not moved by the difficult conditions of Gaza civilians — on the contrary, it sees only political gains when the humanitarian situation worsens — but that Hamas would be loath to loss territory.
Sources in the Government poured cold water on the idea, with Shas leader Aryeh Deri reportedly saying in Cabinet yesterday that “We have nothing to look for in Gaza,” and another unnamed Minister telling Israeli media that the annexation idea is “not really on the table,” but rather just a threat to pressure Hamas.

July 22, 2025

US Ambassador calls joint statement by foreign ministers ‘disgusting’

What’s happened: Foreign Ministers of 29 countries, including the UK, issued a joint statement yesterday on the situation in Gaza and the West Bank calling for an immediate end to the war and castigating Israel for the humanitarian situation in Gaza as well as for settlement activity in the West Bank.

Also yesterday, Foreign Secretary David Lammy spoke to Parliament about the situation in the Middle East, emphasising many of the same points made in the joint statement. In his comments, he referenced signing the statement with “31 Foreign Ministers,” a possible indication that some countries might have backed out at the last minute.
Lammy’s statement began with a short update on the situation in Syria, which condemned the violence in as-Suwayda this past week but studiously avoided taking sides.
The rest of his comments were devoted to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Regarding the war in Gaza, Lammy’s position was clear: “The war in Gaza must end now. There is no military solution. Negotiations will secure the hostages. Further bloodshed serves no purpose. Hamas and Israel must both commit to a ceasefire now, and the next ceasefire must be the last ceasefire.”
The comments ended with a summary of actions taken by the Government on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in its year in office. Whether deliberately or not, the list of actions was decidedly unbalanced: restored UNRWA funding, suspended arms licences for Israel, humanitarian assistance for the Palestinians, sanctions packages on settlers, suspended trade negotiations with Israel, sanctions on far-right Israeli ministers, defences of international courts prosecuting Israel and Israeli leaders, and a “landmark agreement with the Palestinian Authority.”
Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement rejecting the joint statement, not just for its content but also for “sending the wrong message to Hamas” that international pressure on Israel could yield the benefits Hamas seeks more effectively than agreeing to release hostages. The joint statement, according to the Israeli MFA, “fails to focus the pressure on Hamas and fails to recognise Hamas’s role and responsibility for the situation. Hamas is the sole party responsible for the continuation of the war and the suffering on both sides.”
US Ambassador to Israel reacted to the joint statement on X stating: “Disgusting! 25 nations put pressure on Israel instead of savages of Hamas! Gaza suffers for 1 reason: Hamas rejects EVERY proposal. Blaming Israel is irrational.”

Context: Lammy told Parliament that “we are striving to keep open the prospects of a two-state solution,” and two sentences later boasted of restoring funding to UNRWA, seemingly without noticing the contradiction between the two positions. UNRWA is the agency that maintains the “refugee” status of Palestinians born in Palestinian territory living under Palestinian government.

Funding UNRWA doesn’t open the prospect of a two-state solution; it entrenches the Palestinian fantasy that justice can only be served when Palestinians can “return” to Israel and undo the existence of a Jewish state. The Palestinian demand for “return,” and not any Israeli insistence on settlements, was what torpedoed final status talks in all three rounds of negotiations that were held (2000-1, 2007-8, 2013-4).
Indeed, the gaps between the Israeli and Palestinian positions on which settlement areas would be evacuated and which annexed to Israel in territorial swaps were comparatively tiny and inconsequential to negotiations. But nothing in the joint statement nor in Lammy’s comments to Parliament yesterday addresses why there wasn’t a Palestinian state created in 2000 or 2008 (or for that matter 1948).
The claims about the controversial construction plan known as E1 are equally incoherent. The joint statement says that “the E1 settlement plan, if implemented, would divide a Palestinian state in two,” which is bad math and bad geography. A potential Palestinian state is already divided into two non-contiguous territories (Gaza Strip and West Bank).
Lammy’s statement is a bit clearer on the math, but just as muddled on the geography, claiming that E1 “would separate the West Bank’s north from its south,” but a glance at a map shows that this is entirely untrue, with the entire Jericho corridor still open (and the existing Israeli settlement of Maaleh Adumim still the easternmost area of Israeli settlement in the Jerusalem area).
If it were true that E1 could prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, then it would behove supporters of such a state to press the Palestinians to act now and do what they refused to do in each previous round of negotiations, namely make peace with Israel. Nothing in either the joint statement or Lammy’s comments reckons with Palestinian decision making or preferences or even treats the Palestinian side of the conflict as an actor making decisions and shaping events.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the discussion of the hostages. Both the joint statement and Lammy’s speech to Parliament address the continued captivity of Israelis abducted during the massacre of October 7 as something that can only be addressed by “negotiations,” a stark contrast to their claims regarding Israel’s supposed obligations on aid or territory.
“A negotiated ceasefire offers the best hope of bringing them home and ending the agony of their families,” is the way the joint statement addresses the issue, implying that Israel’s failure to meet the ransom demands of their captors is true moral failure, and not the abduction itself. Lammy goes even further in blaming Israel’s leader for the hostages’ plight: “This offensive puts them in grave danger, but still Netanyahu persists.”
In contrast, nothing in both statements implies that “negotiations” could secure aid for Gazans or stop Israel’s military offensive. These are presented as things that simply must happen without conditions and which the UK and other countries are prepared to take affirmative action to pressure Israel on.
If there is any action which the UK Government or Foreign Secretary Lammy have taken to put pressure on the hostage takers or the allied countries who host Hamas leaders, it went unmentioned in both statements. On the contrary, Qatar is singled out for praise in both statements, and Turkey is never referenced at all.
Another point that is missed in the calls for “negotiations” as the only means for liberating hostages is that negotiations are ongoing and have been ongoing for quite some time. As the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs response to the joint statement notes, “there is a concrete proposal for a ceasefire deal, and Israel has repeatedly said yes to this proposal, while Hamas stubbornly refuses to accept it.”
In every version of a proposed agreement, Israel has been willing to pay an exorbitant ransom — in released terrorists, territorial withdrawals, and more — for even partial hostage releases. And despite the implication of both statements that Israel’s position hasn’t allowed for an agreement, it is the Israeli position, not Hamas’, that has considerably moderated in recent weeks along several key points of dispute.
The statement also criticises the allegedly “dangerous” mechanism for aid delivery. However the work of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is designed to circumvent Hamas expropriation of aid, that further perpetuates its control of the Strip. Earlier this week the GHF announced that it delivers around two million meals a day, and 82 million since it began.

Looking ahead: Lammy’s statement yesterday reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to a two-state solution without any reckoning with why that solution has not yet been effected on the ground. Moreover, it pledged the UK Government to a number of policies which make the establishment of Palestinian state next to Israel almost impossible.

“Hamas and Israel must both commit to a ceasefire now, and the next ceasefire must be the last ceasefire,” according to Lammy. This is a demand to end the war with Hamas still in control of the Gaza Strip. No path to statehood exists with the Palestinian Territories governed by two competing governments, one of them a jihadist terrorist organisation. And no path to peace exists with Hamas still standing, newly legitimised by the international community, and regrouping and mobilising for the next October 7.
Funding for UNRWA is not funding for a Palestinian state, but rather funding against one. An investment in the refugee status of Palestinians in Palestinian territory does nothing for the upbuilding of a future state; it only ensures another generation of irredentism, rejectionism, and war.

July 11, 2025

Parliamentary report highlights the Iranian threat in the UK

What’s happened: The British Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) published its long awaited report on Iran and the threats it poses to UK national security.

One of its key findings is that the threat posed by Iran is major, and now equal to that of Russia.
Its contents primarily take the form of declassified intelligence and interviews with senior officials from MI6, MI5, GCHQ, the Cabinet Office, and Home Office.
According to the report, Tehran strategic priorities include:
- Reducing British military presence in the Middle East.
- Undermining its relationship and alliance with the US and Israel.
- Suppressing criticism of the Islamic Republic, especially among UK-based dissident exiles and journalists. An increased threat to Jewish and Israeli interests is also noted.
One key finding is that Iran views the UK as one of its most significant adversaries, only behind the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. The report also found that the threat of assassination and violence by Iran and its proxies had reached the same level as Russia, and is accompanied by a “significant espionage threat” involving multiple intelligence agencies, including the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS), IRGC Intelligence Organisation, and IRGC Quds Force. According to the report, both the MOIS and various arms of the IRGC “pose a significant threat to UK national security.”
While describing the Iranian threat as “more narrowly focused and opportunistic than the more strategic, all-encompassing and well resourced threats from Russia and China,” the report emphasised that “it should not be underestimated given its persistence” highlighting its “ferociously well resourced” intelligence services and “a high appetite for risk when conducting offensive activity, which means it poses a dynamic and erratic threat.”
The following areas were also identified as specific threat elements against the UK and its interests:
- Physical attacks, i.e. “assassination as an instrument of state policy – targeting dissidents is a high priority for both the Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) and the IRGC”.
- Irans’ nuclear weapons programme.
- Espionage – utilising cyber capabilities and human agents. Iran’s cyber threat is described as manifesting itself “acutely”, being significantly easier to deploy than human agents given a difficult operating environment.
- Offensive cyber operations, such as attacks on critical national infrastructure.
- Political interference activity.

Context: Iran has long been understood to pose a major threat to the UK’s national security, but this report is the first time intelligence about its activities and operations has been declassified and made public.

In September 2024, GCHQ issued a joint statement with the FBI and US Treasury warning of “the ongoing threat from spear-phishing attacks carried out by cyber actors working on behalf of the Iranian government”, with targeting prioritising “individuals with a nexus to Iranian and Middle Eastern affairs, such as current and former senior government officials, senior think tank personnel, journalists, activists and lobbyists.”
In October 2024, MI5’s Director General, Ken McCallum, disclosed that the service had “responded to twenty Iran-backed plots presenting potentially lethal threats to British citizens and UK residents”. These plots are understood to have primarily targeted prominent dissident activists, journalists, Israelis, and members of the Jewish community.
In November 2024, a former British Army soldier, Daniel Khalife, was found guilty of having spied for Iran and sentenced to over 14 years in prison for espionage and terrorism offences, including breaches of the Official Secrets Act and eliciting or attempted to elicit information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.
In May 2025, three Iranian men were charged with assisting a foreign intelligence service under the National Security Act following their arrest on suspicion of plotting an attack on the Israeli Embassy in London. Their plea hearing has been scheduled for September 26, and in the event they plead not guilty their trial will take place in October 2026.
Iran International, the dissident TV channel, has faced a significant number of attempted attacks by the regime in Tehran. In February 2023, it was forced to temporarily relocated to Washington, DC, due to credible and increased threats. In December of the same year, Magomed-Husejn Dovtaev was found guilty of one charge of attempting to collect information useful for terrorism after surveilling the station’s West London premises.
This report marks the culmination of years of research and testimony. While it finished taking evidence in August 2023 and therefore did not respond to the Iranian threat post-7th October, the ISC advised that its findings are still relevant despite a changed and changing regional landscape.

Looking ahead: While the ISC welcomed and praised some of the British government’s recent policy measures against Iran, it was nevertheless critical of the overall approach taken, which it said “suffered from a focus on crisis management and has been primarily driven by concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme – to the exclusion of other issues” and that “fire-fighting has prevented the Government from developing a real understanding of Iran, with a lack of Iran-specific expertise across Government”.

From 1 October, enforcement of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme (FIRS) will begin, with individuals acting under Iran’s direction required to register or face up to five years in prison. The Home Office launched the scheme on 1 July, with a three-month grace period for compliance.
The Government is expected to introduce new legislation to close the legal gap preventing the proscription of the IRGC, as confirmed earlier this week by the Minister for the Middle East, Hamish Falconer. However, details of the proposed solution and its timeline remain unclear.
Powers to ban state-backed groups that threaten UK national security – outside the framework of existing counter-terror laws – are expected to be developed, after the Home Secretary committed in May to drafting new legislation to that effect.
According to the Guardian, “the report will feed into the full government response to the review conducted by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, into a new proscription mechanism surrounding state-sponsored terrorism.”

July 8, 2025

Netanyahu and Trump coordinate future moves

What’s happened: Prime Minister Netanyahu arrived in Washington and had dinner with President Trump in an event that was not open to media.

Before the meeting, Trump announced that talks on a new nuclear deal with Iran were scheduled and he once more pledged to do everything to ensure Iran would not acquire nuclear weapons. “We have scheduled Iran talks,” he said, “and they want to talk. They took a big drubbing, I think, when we hit the three sites, really, I would say the three sites, not just the one. The one was a big one.”
Israeli officials in Washington briefing journalists claimed that talks in Doha on a new hostage deal were reaching a conclusion. One much quoted anonymous source said that the deal was “80 to 90 percent agreed on.” In other places, the quote, attributed to a senior official briefing reporters on the flight to Washington, was that Israel had achieved “80 to 90 percent” of its goals in the negations in Doha.
Kan News’ diplomatic correspondent Suleiman Maswadeh reported from Washington that according to Israeli sources there it was possible that an agreement would not be signed this week but rather next. Maswadeh further reported that the delays last week were caused by Hamas rejecting the Witkoff framework, and that Hamas categorically rejected the conditions that might have led to an immediate release of all hostages, rather than the emerging framework for a partial release during the ceasefire.

Gaza: Five IDF soldiers were killed and fourteen others injured yesterday in an incident in Beit Hanoun, in the northern Gaza Strip.

All five served in the Netzah Yehuda Battalion of the Kfir Brigade. They were identified as Staff Sergeant Meir Shimon Amar, 20, from Jerusalem; Sergeant Moshe Nissim Frech, 20, from Jerusalem; Sergeant First Class (res.) Benyamin Asulin, 28, from Haifa; Staff Sergeant Noam Aharon Musgadian, 20, from Jerusalem; and Staff Sergeant Moshe Shmuel Noll, 21, from Beit Shemesh.
37 soldiers have been killed since the end of the ceasefire in March this year. 888 IDF soldiers have been killed in total since the war began on October 7, 2023.
The deadly incident in Beit Hanoun occurred roughly one kilometre from the border fence in an area that has been in full control of the IDF since the ground operation began in late October 2023 — including during the two ceasefires. Army Radio reports that it is still unclear how a terrorist squad was able to operate in the area, to plant at least four explosive devices that were remotely detonated.
In Khan Yunis in the southern Gaza Strip, IDF Chief of General Staff Eyal Zamir met with troops and reiterated his commitment to the war’s two principal objectives, defeating Hamas and liberating the hostages. “Alongside Iran, the central theatre is in Gaza. We are determined and we will lead here to victory… All roads lead to one place: hostages and victory.”

Context: The talks in Washington are focused on the hostage deal, the anticipated nuclear talks with Iran and wider regional moves towards normalisation between Israel and Sunni Arab states.

Talks in Doha dealt not just with the proposed 60-day ceasefire and partial hostage release, but with some general terms regarding the end of the war that would be negotiated during the ceasefire. Leaks to Israeli media suggest that the Israeli Government still rejects a role for the Palestinian Authority in the Strip after the war. “There will be another force in the Strip that will include Palestinians, for sure, but not the PA,” according to the senior Israeli official briefing reporters on the flight to Washington.
Israel Hayom claims that Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected proposals from Washington that would have included a rhetorical commitment to a Palestinian state as a way of securing a peace agreement with Saudi Arabia. According to the report, the Prime Minister’s position remains that Palestinian statehood “was permanently removed from the table in the wake of the October 7 massacre.”
The US lifted sanctions against Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the organisation that was led by Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa until he seized power in the country. As of June 23, the organisation is no longer designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation by the US State Department.
On a visit to Damascus on Saturday, the Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, also announced that the UK would be resuming diplomatic ties with Syria. Despite this, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham remains a proscribed organisation.
American mediated talks seek to reach an agreement between Israel and Syria. US officials are reported to believe that an agreement with Syria will soften Netanyahu’s position on Gaza and allow him to make concessions during the negotiations to end the war during the ceasefire he might otherwise have struggled to push through politically.
Lebanon, too, is looking to reach an agreement with Israel. Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam announced that he seeks a security arrangement with Israel which would see the latter fully withdraw from Lebanese territory and commit Lebanon to disarming Hezbollah.
Besides the regional peace initiatives, another goal of the Prime Minister’s visit in Washington is to secure US commitments on Israel’s interests in Iran. Specifically, the Prime Minister reportedly wants US support for a future attack on Iran should the Islamic regime either move its stockpile of highly enriched uranium or rebuild the core facilities damaged by Israeli and US air strikes in June, including not just those related to its nuclear programme but also its missile production sites.
Additionally, Israeli officials seek a US commitment to demand zero enrichment on Iranian soil as a condition for any future nuclear agreement, a position the Trump administration was deliberately ambiguous about in the earlier negotiations conducted in the spring of this year.

Looking ahead: Defence Minister Yisrael Katz has asked the IDF to prepare a “humanitarian city” to be built on the ruins of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip

A key indicator of progress in the hostage talks will be when US envoy Witkoff joins the talks in Doha.
Netanyahu will remain in Washington for at least two more day: Later today, he will meet Vice President JD Vance and Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson. Tomorrow, he is scheduled to meet with Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth and on Thursday with leaders of the Jewish community. Sources in the prime minister’s entourage said there is no intention of extending the visit to the US into the weekend this time.

July 7, 2025

Netanyahu arrives in DC, as negotiators meet in Doha

What’s happening: Prime Minister Netanyahu is scheduled to meet with President Trump later today. Before that he will meet with Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and with Secretary of State Rubio.

President Trump told reporters last night that he believed that a Gaza ceasefire is close. He also said that he would discuss with Netanyahu a permanent agreement with Iran.
On Sunday, Israel dispatched a negotiating team to Doha. A deal is not thought to be imminent and talks are expected to take several days.
Before departing, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that Israel was working to reach an agreement to free the hostages under conditions Israel had agreed. He added that the negotiating team that was sent to Doha had been given clear instructions.
On Saturday night, the Israel government voted to expand the distribution of humanitarian aid in northern Gaza. It is understood that the distribution would be handled by international aid organisations, and not Israel’s preferred partner the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).
The cabinet meeting included a heated stand-off between IDF Chief of Staff Zamir and Finance Minister Smotrich, who along with National Security Minister Ben Gvir objected to the expansion of aid, as it is inevitably seized by Hamas.

Context: The return of Israeli negotiators to Doha is a source for optimism although officials have cautioned that gaps remain.

The negotiators are reportedly working on bridging these gaps, following Hamas’s positive response towards the Witkoff outline, with the group agreeing to certain parts but adding several caveats.
The latest reported details suggest eight hostages are to be released on the first day and two are to be released on the 50th day. The remains of deceased hostages will be released on three separate dates—five on the seventh day, five on the 30th day and eight on the 60th day.
Israeli officials believe that two factors have caused Hamas to show greater flexibility in ceasefire talks: The first is the IDF’s military advances over the last two months which have led to Hamas losing control over more territory and some parts of the population as well as the continued elimination of some of its commanders; the second is Israel’s successful strike against Iran.
The IDF has suggested that Operation Gideon’s Chariots is now close to completion and has endorsed a deal at this stage.
Over the weekend, the Hostages and Missing Families Forum stated its opposition to a deal that would free the hostages in stages. “The method of stages and partial agreements creates unbearable uncertainty for every single family, all of which yearn for some sort of salve after 638 days – whether that be to embrace their returning loved ones or having a grave to mourn at.”
Speaking at a rally yesterday in Tel Aviv, Yotam Cohen, the brother of IDF hostage Nimrod Cohen, said “People who take the responsibility to send soldiers into battle need to have the courage to pay the price to get them back home.”

Unresolved issues: Hamas has three key demands:

The IDF withdraw to the positions it held in early March, prior to Operation Gideon’s Chariots. This includes swaths of territory mainly in southern Gaza, where Israel currently holds the Morag Corridor between Rafah and Khan Yunis.
Maintaining the Morag Corridor will allow the IDF to continue to control the southern Gaza Strip and the aid distribution centres, and will also allow it to set up a humanitarian zone that is not under Hamas’s control.
Since the beginning of the operation, the IDF has also made advancements in the north, in Bet Lahiya, Bet Hanoun and Sajaiya.
Hamas demands that only the UN oversees aid distribution. The Israeli government’s – whilst continuing to cooperate with the UN mechanism – has serious concerns that it only perpetuates Hamas governability.
Without control of the aid, Hamas is struggling to pay its troops’ salaries and recruit new ones.
Hamas also hopes to regain control over areas in which the GHF currently operates in the south.
Israel has demanded a different distribution mechanism that would prevent Hamas from commandeering the supplies, including international supervision.
Hamas has also demanded that sufficient aid be delivered to allow bakeries, hospitals and other civilian infrastructure to operate at full capacity. Israel remains concerned some of the material will be siphoned off and used for military purposes.
A third Hamas demand is a US written guarantee that the ceasefire will be upheld throughout the negotiations over the war’s end, even if the negotiations continue beyond the 60^th day.

Longer term: Any agreement would last 60 days with the real challenge arriving at the subsequent stage of the talks when even more sensitive issues would be discussed. These include:

Agreed IDF deployment and future rules of engagement.
Exile of Hamas leaders, even if only symbolic.
Demilitarisation, and the disarming of Hamas as well as their future functioning in Gaza.
Future governance and makeup of the new administration.

Yemen: Israel attacked Houthi terrorist targets in Yemen Sunday night for the first time since the war against Iran ended.

This came after a renewed albeit sporadic Houthi missile attacks against Israel over the past week.
Prior to the strike, Operation Black Flag, the IDF Spokesperson’s Office issued a public warning in which he called for the evacuation of the seaports in Yemen.
The IDF subsequently confirmed that it had struck the ports of Hodeida, Salif and Ras Issa, where Galaxy Leader was also struck. The Galaxy Leader is a commercial ship that was hijacked by the Houthi regime in November 2023.
Twenty IAF war planes took part in Operation Black Flag and fired over 50 munitions. Defence Minister Katz warned, “the rule for Yemen is the rule for Tehran”, alluding into Israeli doctrine towards both regimes.
Yemen fired two missiles in retaliation. Sirens were sounded in the south and centre, no casualties were reported.
After hijacking the ship, the Houthis installed radars and used it to track maritime movement in international waters, effectively turning the hijacked ship into an intelligence vessel which is why it was struck as a military target.
The Galaxy Leader, which is owned by a British company that is partially-owned by the Israeli Rami Ungar, had been leased to a Japanese company.
The Houthis released the 25 crew members, from Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, the Philippines and Mexico in January 2025, during a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. Their release was coordinated with Hamas.

June 19, 2025

UK-Israel forum tackles the evolving threat of disinformation

What’s happened: On Tuesday 17th June, BICOM co-hosted a “UK-Israel Disinformation Response Forum” with the National Liberal Club’s Defence & Security Circle at its premises at Whitehall.

The event was intended to provide a space where British and Israeli practitioners, as well as interested individuals, could network and exchange best practice on the shared threats posed by disinformation.
The evening consisted of a keynote address on the psychology of disinformation, panels on open source intelligence as an antidote to disinformation and tech solutions, and open forum and Q&A.
Through conversation between both practitioners and thought-leaders the evening discussed how the challenges of digital disinformation, manipulation and influence today differ from the past in the speed and scale of operations and their impact. It also sought to explore how AI tools and collaboration between experts can help tackle misinformation both individually and systemically.

Speakers included:

Andrew Fox, former British Army special forces officer who has deployed to Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, the Balkans, and Middle East. After leaving the army he taught at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, specialising in psychology and disinformation. He is a Research Fellow at the Henry Jackson Society.
- In his presentation, Andrew explored the psychological and social factors that make individuals and societies vulnerable to disinformation, highlighting how cognitive biases (like confirmation bias, cognitive fluency, and the backfire effect) and social identity dynamics shape peoples’ susceptibility.
- Drawing on empirical data on the scale of online manipulation, he discussed how disinformation exploits our craving for simplicity and tribal affiliations in a fast-paced, emotionally charged media environment.
Tal Hagin, a researcher for FakeReporter, an Israeli watchdog group focusing on combating fake news, online incitement, and foreign influence campaigns. He specialises in information and psychological warfare, and increasing organisational and individual resilience to misinformation and disinformation.
- Tal spoke of how in an era shaped by post-truth dynamics and institutional mistrust, credibility online is often based not on expertise but on emotional appeal or persuasive framing. To counter this, he argued that open-source research is essential – and that people must move beyond trust and rely instead on verifiable evidence.
- He spoke of how as a researcher, his aim is to ensure every claim is backed by accessible sources, allowing for cross-verification.
Dr Lynette Nusbacher, a former British Army intelligence officer who was a member of the team that created two of the UK’s National Security Strategies as part of Britain’s National Security Secretariat. She has been Senior Lecturer in War Studies, Royal Military Academy Sandhurst; Head of the Strategic Horizons Unit in the UK Cabinet Office; and the Devil’s Advocate to Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee.
- Lynette argued that effective response to disinformation has to be strategically designed storytelling delivered en masse. In order to be effective and to work at scale, these operations need to be created from robust narratives, based on interactive use of open source for not only intelligence but also surveillance, reconnaissance and target acquisition. These stories need to be designed to contest the information space and to disrupt opposing narratives (regardless of their veracity).
- She added that preparing people of any age to exist in this contested and congested information space requires education, but emphasised that such education/influence cannot rely on state education design. It needs to incorporate guerrilla education across multiple channels including multiple media (old, new and social).
Naomi Krieger-Carmy, founder and first Director of the UK-Israel Tech Hub and a Founding Partner at Remedy CoLab, a Tel Aviv-based start-up working to provide digital solutions to disinformation. From a Wall Street background, she moved to management, investment and entrepreneurial roles that rely on understanding tech, innovation and policy ecosystems, making connections, and leading teams to build solutions and get things done.
- In her presentation, Naomi spoke about how technology innovators are responding to the challenges of digital disinformation, manipulation and influence with smart automated solutions which can detect, protect and respond to malicious influence campaigns and disinformation.
- In this context, Remedy CoLab mapped over 250 companies globally with solutions in this space – a new sector they named “Trust Tech”, which is growing rapidly with innovation centres in both the UK and Israel. The technologies hold great promise as “dual use” or even “triple use” solutions – addressing challenges to national security, businesses as well as societal aspects such as inciting hate and polarisation.
Dr Rupert Small, the founder and CEO of Egregious, a London-based AI start-up which protects the internet from superhuman AI deception, misinformation, disinformation and polarisation.
- Rupert spoke of how in today’s high speed, post-truth attention economy, fact-checking individual posts can provide value, but ensuring resilience in the narrative supply chain as a whole is the ultimate imperative. This infrastructure is what supports the dissemination of information, and it is currently being weaponised at scale.
- Becayse Cyber Warfare and Autonomous Espionage now targets people rather than just IT systems, our ability to understand the world around us is under direct threat (as AI agents can now imitate humans online with perfect fidelity). He added that Generative AI can create photorealistic images at the press of a button, so we need to go beyond photorealism when thinking about truth and reality. Disinformation is now merely one tool amongst many being used online to radicalise, polarise and deceive audiences at scale.

Conclusion: The forum highlighted the critical need for sustained collaboration between policymakers, researchers, technologists and civil society to address the rapidly evolving disinformation landscape.

As the information domain becomes ever more contested, such dialogue between the UK and Israel remains vital to strengthening democratic defences against manipulation and distortion.
BICOM’s mission is to provide a platform for experts and stakeholders to share best practices and deepen understanding of Israel and the wider Middle East in the United Kingdom. As part of this work, BICOM regularly hosts events and forums to foster dialogue and informed engagement.

June 11, 2025

Israel, US push back on UK announcement to sanction ministers

What’s happened: The UK announced sanctions against two far-right Israeli cabinet ministers, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich.

The announcement was made in a joint statement by Foreign Secretary David Lammy and the foreign ministers of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and Norway. The sanctions include an asset freeze and a travel ban.
The new joint statement justified the measures by alluding to acts of settler violence in the West Bank and accusing the two sanctioned ministers of directly inciting it. However, the ministers went on to confirm their commitment to Israel.
The move was condemned by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who wrote “We reject any notion of equivalence: Hamas is a terrorist organization that committed unspeakable atrocities, continues to hold innocent civilians hostage, and prevents the people of Gaza from living in peace. We remind our partners not to forget who the real enemy is. The United States urges the reversal of the sanctions and stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel.”
In Israel, the move was condemned by government ministers, and some opposition figures, including Benny Gantz, who wrote “I vehemently disagree with Ministers Smotrich & Ben-Gvir on a wide range of issues – but the imposition of British sanctions on Ministers in the one and only democracy in the Middle East the State of Israel is a profound moral mistake and sends a dangerous message to terrorists around the world. While the State of Israel defends itself as an outpost of the free world from murderous terror groups & regimes in the region – pressure should rather be directed at Hamas, Iran and its axis of evil.”
Foreign Minister Gideon Saar went further in his criticism, noting that this move, like various other gestures designed to pressure Israel, strengthen Hamas: “The political pressure on Israel, which manifests itself in various ways, has one goal: to bring about an end to the war without achieving its goals, while Hamas still controls Gaza and continues to endanger Israel’s security. This is pressure, well planned and timed, that includes a series of moves by various countries, decisions in international forums, and proceedings in the so-called ‘international courts.’ The actions and decisions against Israel also contribute to hardening Hamas’ stance in the negotiations for the hostage deal – and distance it and the ceasefire.”
This morning he reportedly refused to accept a phone call from his counterpart David Lammy.
The joint statement reiterates that the sanctions “do not deviate from our unwavering support for Israel’s security and we continue to condemn the horrific terror attacks of 7 October by Hamas.  Today’s measures are targeted towards individuals who in our view undermine Israel’s own security and its standing in the world. We continue to want a strong friendship with the people of Israel based on our shared ties, values and commitment to their security and future.”

Context: This latest announcement follows a series of actions by Lammy and Prime Minister Starmer indicating a harder line on Israel, including suspensions of some weapons exports, ending free trade talks, and a previous joint statement with Canada and France condemning Israeli actions in Gaza, which was praised the next day by Hamas.

Individual sanctions of this sort were previously announced for some Russian officials. It’s highly unusual for such action to be taken against ministers in an allied government, and no such action has been considered for officials from Turkey and Qatar, with regimes with close ties to the UK who openly back Hamas.
Though the announcement is billed as a direct response to Israeli actions on the West Bank, it is the war in Gaza, and frustration with Israel’s conduct of the war, that is largely driving the move. The joint statement mentions the war in Gaza only in the last paragraph and reiterates the three principles that have been largely in consensus among western governments regarding the war since it began: access to aid must be unfettered; displacement of population constitutes “unlawful transfer”; and no territorial loss for Gaza can be accepted.
Critics in Israel and elsewhere hold that all three principles are bespoke inventions for this war and exist nowhere in international law or practice — and that they remove any leverage Israel might have to pressure Hamas to release the hostages it took on October 7, while trapping civilians inside a war zone, making attacking Hamas targets more difficult and granting Hamas a propaganda victory when any attack is carried out.
Settlements and settlers are extremely unpopular in western diplomatic circles, and are widely viewed as Israel’s biggest contribution to the absence of peace in the region. The issue of settlements did not figure in the failure of final status talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the past 25 years. In all rounds, Israel agreed to evacuate most settlements in exchange for minor adjustments to the pre-1967 borders to accommodate three blocs of settlements built close to the line. Each round of talks collapsed when the Palestinians turned down offers of statehood conditioned on a full reconciliation and termination of claims, particularly on the refugee issue. Settlements were simply not the reason why peace talks failed or why a two-state solution was not effected.
Nor were settlements the reason for the October 7 attack and the subsequent war. There were no settlements in Gaza when Hamas launched its attack. All Gaza settlements were evacuated in 2005 when Israel withdrew from the 20% of the Strip still under its control under the terms of the Oslo Accords. And despite the war raging for 20 months now, and the IDF placing under its direct control large swathes of territory in the Gaza Strip, not a single settlement has been established anywhere in Gaza, not even in areas that were designated for Israeli control under the Oslo agreements.
Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich head two far-right religious nationalist parties which ran together on a joint list in the most recent elections and secured 14 seats in Israel’s 120-member Knesset. Recent polls show Ben-Gvir’s party at roughly nine seats and Smotrich’s failing to cross the electoral threshold, making their participation in the future government less likely.

Looking ahead: The Israeli government will soon convene to formulate a response.

Opposition parties announced this morning that they would table a motion to dissolve parliament and hold early elections. This comes on the backdrop of a crisis in the governing coalition around draft exemptions for the ultra-Orthodox community. The ultra-Orthodox parties have threatened to bolt the coalition if they are not granted significant concessions in a draft law, while one Likud lawmaker, Yuli Edelstein, has blocked the legislation that would open to the path allowing exemptions to continue.
For the opposition, the decision to bring the motion up for a vote now is a dilemma. If it fails, a new motion to dissolve the Knesset cannot be introduced for another six months.
For the ultra-Orthodox parties who are threatening the coalition, the stakes are just as high. If they carry out their threat and topple the government, they may very well find themselves in opposition in the next Knesset.

May 29, 2025

US to present new ceasefire proposal

What’s happened: US envoy Steve Witkoff appeared poised to unveil a revised ceasefire proposal amid optimistic leaks, mainly from American sources, of closing gaps between the positions of Hamas and Israel.

According to reports, the new ceasefire would include:
- An immediate release of nine or ten living hostages, plus the remains of 18 deceased hostages. Hamas holds 58 Israeli hostages, of whom twenty are presumed to be alive.
- In return Israel is to release 125 heavyweight terrorists with blood on their hands, all of whom are life-term prisoners. Israel will also release 1,111 terrorists from the Gaza Strip who were arrested after October 7, 2023. Israel will also be required to release the remains of 180 dead terrorists.
- The proposed ceasefire would last 60 days, during which negotiations would continue for a permanent end to the war and a release of all remaining hostages. Hamas is insisting on stronger American guarantees that the ceasefire would lead to a permanent end to fighting.
- The US appear confident they have found the wording to reassure Israel that if no agreements are reached by the end of that period, Israel will be able either to renew the fighting or to engage in further negotiations in exchange for the release of additional hostages.
President Trump publicly confirmed that he had asked Prime Minister Netanyahu not to attack Iran while nuclear negotiations were ongoing. The public statement followed days of speculation about a reportedly tense phone call between the two leaders and American assessments that Israel might be preparing an attack.
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation continued expanding its aid distribution amid an astonishing media campaign waged against it by Hamas, the UN, and sundry international NGO’s. Its operations were once more suspended briefly due to crowds and disorder, with no injuries reported.
According to Israeli officials another 121 trucks belonging to the UN entered into Gaza on Wednesday, delivering flour and other food.
Elsewhere in the Gaza Strip, a UN food warehouse operated by the UN World Food Program was broken into and looted. At least four people were reported killed; two were trampled and two were killed by gunfire. Media reports were unclear whether the shooting was from Hamas gunmen or criminal gangs. In a statement, the World Food Program refrained from identifying the source of gunfire, while describing the supplies in the warehouse as “pre-positioned for distribution.” In recent weeks, the WFP had consistently reported that it had run out of food stocks entirely due to Israel’s blockade.

Context: The Trump administration’s public pronouncements and diplomatic maneuvers on both Iran and Gaza in the past week have repeatedly and pointedly indicated small but significant differences of opinion and priorities that exist in Jerusalem and Washington.

Writing in Yediot Ahronot, Ronen Bergman described it as a “gradually increasing friction with the United States over a series of issues that pertain to the hostages and the war in Gaza.” The administration has been keen to emphasise these differences, either as a form of pressure on Netanyahu or as a negotiating tactic — or both.
In Israel, concern is high that the administration might agree to a deal with Iran that leaves Israel exposed to long-term Iranian nuclear ambitions while removing any threat of American action. Particularly concerning for Israel is the prospect of an interim deal being announced that is vague on details giving Iran instant sanctions relief while negotiations on a detailed accord drag on inconclusively.
The issue of the hostages continues to roil internal Israeli politics, with hostage families expressing frustration at the prospect of another partial deal, as opposed to an agreement that might liberate all the remaining hostages. The twenty living hostages are widely assumed to all be in poor physical and mental state after 600 days in captivity in tunnels, without adequate light, food, water, and medical care.
At a rally yesterday in Hostages Square in Tel Aviv, Ohad Ben Ami, who survived Hamas captivity and was released in an earlier ceasefire, said, “Of the 58 hostages still held in Gaza, five of them were with me – in the same tunnel, through the same cold nights, living with the same daily terror. All of them are still alive. In the recent videos that were released, I saw them. Eyes dimmed, gaunt, exhausted. The fear I saw in their eyes haunts me. Their physical condition is terrible. Their mental state is even worse. I’m deeply worried about them. I know exactly what they’re going through – I was there. The six of us were imprisoned together in a tunnel 30 meters underground, in inhuman conditions: no light, no air, no medical care, not a single moment of privacy or true quiet. We survived on scraps – both physically and emotionally.”
Another former hostage Omer Shem Tov was interviewed on CNN, where he described being intentionally starved by Hamas during his 505 days in captivity, forced to survive in the tunnels on merely a biscuit and a few sips of salty water each day, whilst his captors were well fed. He said, “I remember walking by another room in the tunnel, seeing a big amount of food…huge amounts. So, I was being starved. There’s no question about it.”

Looking ahead: A third humanitarian aid distribution centre will be opened today in the Gaza Strip. The new distribution centre will be established in central Gaza, south of the Netzarim Corridor. The first two centres established are both further south.

Like the others, the new centre will also be capable of providing food to 300,000 Palestinian residents of Gaza every week. It is primarily supposed to serve Palestinian residents of the central Gaza Strip.
Senior officials in the ultra-Orthodox Shas party are due to meet next week to decide whether to remain in the coalition. Both Shas and the other major ultra-Orthodox party, United Torah Judaism, have been boycotting votes in parliament in order to pressure the government to proceed with legislations enshrining draft exemptions for the ultra-Orthodox public into law. Such legislation is deeply unpopular with the Israeli public at large, including with large parts of the right-wing coalition now in power. On the other hand, if the ultra-Orthodox parties follow through with their threats, the result would be an early election.

Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood

Hezbollah and Lebanon

Iran and their Proxies

Israeli politics & society

Peace Partners, Normalisation and Coexistence

Syria

The West Bank and Settlements

LATEST

Critique of the US-Iran MOU

Iran MOU fallout grows as Hezbollah attacks IDF

Israel reels from Trump’s Iran MOU

Court of Appeal upholds Palestine Action proscription

US-Iran agreement leaves key nuclear questions unresolved

US and Iran escalate exchange of strikes