#hamas surrender

By CAROLINE GLICK

Any complex issue deserves (no, requires) lengthy argument, and this piece by Caroline Glick this is no exception. But Caroline is a cogent writer who makes everyone smarter. So read it and get properly informed.

***************************************

In Israel as in states throughout the Western world, the political Left is an ecosystem of power, and not merely a political camp. It starts with the parties of the center- and far-Left. But it encompasses far more powerful institutions and actors, as well. These include the universities, the vast majority of media organs, most of the entertainment industry, and much of the economic elite. The Left also comprises the senior ranks of the security establishment—represented most clearly by politically active retired generals.

The most powerful component of the Left's ecosystem in Israel is the legal fraternity, which is comprised of the Supreme Court, the attorney general, the state prosecution, and the legal advisors to the Knesset and the government ministries.

Despite its control over vast power sources in Israeli society, the Left does not control the Israeli people themselves. A significant majority of Israelis define themselves as right-of-center. In the last elections, right-of-center parties won 64 seats in Israel's 120-seat parliament, the Knesset. The Left's parties won a mere 46 seats. The other 10 seats went to two anti-Zionist Arab parties, which are supported by, but are not constituent parts of, the leftist ecosystem.

For the first three decades after Israel won independence in 1948, the Left held all levers of political power. The Labor Party controlled the government and the Knesset. And its loyalists controlled the Left's nonpolitical ecosystem. When, under Menachem Begin, the Right won its first electoral victory in 1977, Begin disappointed his loyalists and opted not to replace Labor's apparatchiks in the public sector, the Israel Defense Forces, the legal system, and state media with his own. Begin's refusal to bring in his own people was a source of rancor, but when viewed in its historical context, his decision had its merits. Labor's apparatchiks were old-left socialists, ideologically, but they were experienced in the ways of governance and they were patriots. True, they despised Begin, but they loved Israel. Leaving them secure in their positions may have made them political thorns in Begin's side, but it didn't harm the national interest.

Begin would probably have acted differently today.

Like the Left throughout the Western world, over the past 30 years, Israel's Left has abandoned labor union politics for cultural Marxism and post-nationalism. Its new globalist ideals render the Left's constituent parts contemptuous, and increasingly hateful, of Israel's nationalist majority.

In the decades since Begin opted to leave the Labor apparatchiks in place, their post-nationalist successors have formed an oligarchy whose power sits beyond the reach of the elected Israeli government. Its members, particularly in the legal fraternity, have seized more and more executive powers away from the government, and more and more legislative powers away from the Knesset. For the past three decades, government lawyers have killed government decisions and legislative initiatives, before they were off the drawing board, by proclaiming them "unreasonable" or "legally problematic" (as opposed to illegal).

When the government and Knesset chose to disregard the unsubtle orders from their unelected lawyers, the Supreme Court pounced. The justices haven't flinched from abrogating the government's actions; and more often than not, the justices have based their decisions not on statutory law, but on the extraordinarily vague "reasonableness" rationale that has enabled them to strike down laws and lawful government actions simply by deeming them "unreasonable."

Today, led quite openly by Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice Esther Hayut and her predecessor, Aharon Barak, the Israeli Left is in open rebellion against the Netanyahu government and its plans to reform the judicial system. Buffeted and sometimes led by a media that has abandoned all pretense of dispassionate journalism for propaganda, some on the Left—including the mayor of Tel Aviv—have outright called for civil war. Others have deployed a combination of riots, protests, boycotts, highway blockages, and lawfare in a bid to paralyze and intimidate the Netanyahu government into standing down.

The Netanyahu government's program for judicial reform is astounding for its modesty. If passed in full, it will simply realign Israel's currently unchecked judiciary with the checked judiciaries of the vast majority of Western democracies.

The judicial reform package's main components are: placing judicial appointments under more political control; requiring justices to base their judgments on the law, rather than the malleable veneer of "reasonableness"; banning the Supreme Court from amending or overriding Israel's Basic laws, which form the basis of Israel's quasi-constitutional rule of law; and placing constraints on the Supreme Court's power to abrogate laws duly promulgated by the Knesset, while providing the Knesset with a mechanism for overriding the Court's decisions.

The final clause of the government's reform package stipulates that the attorney general's opinions do not bind the government that he ostensibly serves.

While the Left has managed to engender a sense of chaos, the situation in Israel is actually far more stable than it appears. The Left's riots will continue so long as the billionaire funders in Israel and abroad send their checks. But the legal reform will be passed into law and implemented.

Any doubt that this would occur was dispelled two weeks ago, via a strategic intervention by Israeli President Isaac Herzog. Although the position of Israeli president is a largely ceremonial post, two weeks ago Herzog inserted himself into the middle of the debate. In a primetime address, Herzog set out his own proposal for judicial reform. A former head of the Labor Party and the son of Israel's sixth president, the late Chaim Herzog, Isaac Herzog is a scion of the leftist establishment.

Herzog's proposal involved fewer limits on the Court's powers than the government's proposal. But his intervention was important—indeed, it was decisive—for three main reasons.

First, Herzog's proposal is predicated on both recognition and opposition to the fact that today, Israel's Supreme Court has no checks on its power whatsoever. To restore and safeguard Israel's democracy, the Israeli Supreme Court must cease to operate as a self-perpetuating judicial oligarchy.

Second, Herzog's proposal recognizes the fundamental legitimacy of the political Right. Knesset opposition leader Yair Lapid and his partners have so far refused to follow suit; as far as they are concerned, the Israeli people's vote last fall to restore Netanyahu to power was no more than an arbitrary moment, and far less legitimate than the unmoving positions of the nation's ruling elite.

Finally, Herzog's intervention gave cover to leftist politicians and luminaries who, like him, are willing to work with the Netanyahu government to reach a workable compromise on legal reform. Despite public denials by various opposition politicians, following Herzog's speech, prominent leftists have been meeting behind the scenes with Justice Minister Yariv Levin, Chairman of Knesset Law, Constitution, and Justice Committee Simcha Rothman, and their advisors, in order to bridge differences.

And those differences are not all that large. Nearly every single leading politician on the Left—including Lapid himself—has put forward a program of judicial reform similar to the Netanyahu government's plan. Back in 1994, Herzog's father, then-President Chaim Herzog, also called for constraining judicial power.

At the end of the day, the fight over judicial reform in Israel isn't about judicial reform at all. It is about the radical Left, and its refusal to accept the validity of democratic outcomes when its side loses. The Netanyahu government will win because, despite the fact that the radicals have taken over the leftist ecosystem, enough old-left Zionists are still around to work with their counterparts on the Zionist Right and cut a deal.

Mass surrender of Hamas terrorists in the northern Gaza Strip

The terrorists place their Kalashnikov on the ground according to the instructions of the IDF soldiers.

Note that they are all concentrated near a UNRWA school that serves as a shelter for Gazans who left their homes.

It can be assumed that some of them found shelter in the school.

Earlier today I reported here 👆 about the fact that the IDF is calling on all men aged 15 and over at the Khalifa School to go outside.

I don't know if this is the same event, but the proximity to the school definitely indicates the location where they were caught.

The dropping of weapons indicates that these are armed terrorists and their surrender signifies a lot.

Their friends in Khan Yunis see this clearly.

And not only in Khan Yunis - in the entire Middle East.

The video will surely get millions of views on social networks.

Thank you, Hashem. Thank you, IDF!

By: Rushdi Abualouf

Published: Oct 1, 2025

A senior Hamas figure has told the BBC that the group is likely to reject Donald Trump's peace plan for Gaza, saying it "serves Israel's interests" and "ignores those of the Palestinian people".

The figure said that Hamas is unlikely to agree to disarming and handing over their weapons - a key condition of Trump's plan.

Hamas is also said to object to the deployment of an International Stabilisation Force (ISF) in Gaza, which it views as a new form of occupation.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted Trump's plan during White House talks on Monday. Hamas has not yet given an official response.

Qatar's foreign ministry has said Hamas is studying the White House proposal "responsibly".

A senior Palestinian official with knowledge of Hamas talks told the BBC they involve the group's leadership both inside and outside of Gaza.

The group's military commander in the territory, Ez al-Din al-Haddad, is thought to be determined to keep fighting rather than accept the plan on offer. Hamas figures outside Gaza have recently found themselves sidelined in discussions as they do not have direct control over the hostages.

Hamas talks, which are expected to take several days, also include other Palestinian factions.

The armed group Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), which took part in the 7 October attack and previously held some Israeli hostages, rejected the plan on Tuesday.

For Hamas, a key sticking point is thought to be that the plan requires them to hand over all of the hostages in one go - giving away their only bargaining chip.

Even with Donald Trump's backing for the plan, there is a lack of trust that Israel will not resume its military operations once it has received the hostages - particularly after it attempted to assassinate Hamas leadership in Doha earlier this month, in defiance of the US.

Additionally, a map of Gaza shared by the Trump administration shows what appears to be a planned buffer zone along Gaza's southern border with Egypt. It is unclear how this would be administered, but if Israel is involved it is also likely to be a point of contention.

Further, since agreeing to the plan on Monday evening, Netanyahu has appeared to push back on several of the terms it outlines.

In a video shared on X, he insists that the Israeli military would be able to remain in parts of Gaza and that Israel said it would "forcibly resist" a Palestinian state.

This goes against the terms of Trump's framework, which stipulates complete withdrawal of Israeli forces and says that once the plan is complete there may be a "credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood".

Within Gaza, Palestinians were broadly supportive of the plan, but only because it would lead to an end to the war.

Resident Khadar Abu Kweik told the BBC: "The American plan has bad clauses, but I support it because it will stop the war and get rid of Hamas. Even if the devil himself brought a plan to end this hell we are living in, I would support it."

Palestinian journalist Fathi Sabah said: "A Hamas rejection, god forbid, would mean giving Netanyahu a green light to continue the war with American and Western backing, to destroy what remains of Gaza and the central region."

"The people of Gaza cannot bear that. They are devastated, exhausted, desperate and hopeless," he said.

"They want a ceasefire now, not tomorrow, at any cost, even though they know the plan serves Netanyahu's interests, is full of pitfalls, and does not reflect their aspirations," he added.

The Israeli military launched a campaign in Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 66,097 people have been killed in Israeli attacks in Gaza since then, according to the territory's Hamas-run health ministry.

In August, a UN-backed body confirmed that famine was taking place in Gaza City. Earlier this month, a UN commission of inquiry concluded that Israel had committed genocide in Gaza - which Israel strongly rejects.

--

Note: Parody.

GAZA — Despite early reports that the Palestinian terrorist organization was open to accepting the terms of President Donald Trump's brokered peace plan, Hamas rejected the deal to end alleged genocide in the region after learning it would require them to stop killing Jews.

Trump's 20-point roadmap to peace initially seemed to be on the fast track to being approved by both Hamas and Israel shortly after he announced it, but hopes of a lasting end to hostilities were dashed when Hamas said they would not accept any deal that meant they would need to stop plotting and carrying out plans to murder more Jewish people.

"No can do," said Hamas spokesterrorist Qadir Ghazzawi. "While we would be open to speaking about terms to bring an end to this conflict, we find the requirement that we stop killing Jews non-negotiable. If President Trump would like to present a plan that would allow Hamas to survive while also retaining the opportunity to murder many, many Jews, we would take it under consideration. Thank you, Great Satan America, and death to Israel."

Sources within the U.S. State Department said any peace negotiations that include a prohibition on Hamas killing more Jews would be tough sledding. "It seems to be a real sticking point for them," one insider said. "While they talk a lot about wanting peace, they sure do love killing them some Jews. It's a real pickle."

At publishing, Hamas had reached out to representatives of the U.S. and Israeli governments to propose a scenario in which Israel stops all military operations while Hamas continues to come up with more ways to murder Jews.

==

Apparently, "not dying" is not a benefit to or in the interests of the "Palestinian" people.

Has it ever been clearer that it was never about their lives, it's always been about erasing Israel?

Hamas lost. Losers don't get to dictate terms. They can accept the surrender or people can just keep dying, I guess.

That's the deal. Surrender or die.