An IDF investigation has produced no verdict and no new evidence of guilt. The online mob is exploiting the tragedy for clicks anyway.

By Andrew Fox

The IDF has opened a criminal investigation into the deaths of Hind Rajab and eight others. That is the entire development. No verdict is implied. The announcement identifies no suspect, nor does it specify an offence. Online carrion crows have turned Hind’s death into clickbait by stripping the news of its qualifications and selling an investigation as a verdict.

describes the alleged shelling of that ambulance and records that the girls and two paramedics were later found dead. It does not establish what happened during the intervening hours.

Mark Zlochin’s close reading exposes the misrepresentation. The formal finding concerns the initial fire at the car. The later events remain reports and allegations. His earlier analysis raised unresolved questions about the route and timeline and tested whether the telephone material and available lines of sight supported The IDF examination states that troops fired at the approaching family car on 29 January 2024. Five passengers were killed; Hind and her cousin Layan survived the encounter. Hours later, a Palestine Red Crescent ambulance, whose movement had been coordinated, went to recover them. The announcement more than one source of fire. Those questions do not resolve the deaths, and today’s announcement provides no new evidence of criminal guilt.

There is one awkward point for Israel’s defenders. The IDF’s first account said no troops were in the area. Its subsequent examination now acknowledges that troops fired at the car. That correction cannot be wished away, and anyone who repeated the first version should amend their view. The acknowledgement revises the official account of the initial encounter. Hind and Layan, it now says, survived the initial fire, while the ambulance strike and their later deaths remain under investigation. Criminal responsibility remains unresolved.

The carrion feeders have ignored that distinction. They demanded an investigation. The moment one was announced, they called it an admission. Their trick relies on readers confusing suspicion with conviction. They use a dead child for emotional force and borrow legal vocabulary to manufacture authority. Nobody has been charged. No court has tested individual liability in the Hind case or in the separate Tel al-Sultan referral. There is no legal conclusion in either case. For these people, the case is not about truth or justice for Hind Rajab: it is about validating their preconceptions about Israel no matter what.

The IDF’s Fact-Finding and Assessment Mechanism compiles operational material for the Military Advocate General. Reasonable suspicion triggers a military police investigation; prosecutors then assess whether the evidence offers a reasonable prospect of conviction. A referral records suspicion but supplies no answer. The suspected offence may involve negligence in following procedure. The announcement does not say.

I have always maintained that where credible evidence supports a war crime charge, it should be prosecuted. That remains my position. The World Central Kitchen case illustrates the distinction. Australia’s review by Air Chief Marshal Mark Binskin found that the strike was not knowingly or deliberately directed against the charity. It recorded mistaken identification and failures to follow procedures. Binskin made no criminal finding. A catastrophic outcome can warrant criminal scrutiny without establishing deliberate murder.

I know of a British soldier in Afghanistan who shot dead a farmer carrying a broom. Having known the soldier well and having previously expressed doubts about his suitability for deployment, I am fairly certain that a murder was committed. His defence was that he genuinely believed the broom was a weapon and that his life was threatened. No charges followed. The incident is relevant here only as an example of how difficult it is to reconstruct a shooter’s state of mind after the event.

War crime allegations in Gaza, and more generally, are difficult to investigate because evidence is disturbed and witnesses can be inaccessible. There are no sterile crime scenes, few witness statements, and evidential chains of custody are extremely hard to maintain or prove. The criminal standard of proof does not bend to outrage.

The delay remains a fair ground for criticism. Peter Lerner accurately describes the timing problem:

Israel’s legal machinery moves at an investigative pace, while the information war moves in minutes or seconds. His call for earlier acknowledgement and carefully bounded updates might have reduced speculation. Seth Frantzman’s demand for accountability is fair, too. However, a bleaker counterpoint remains as an answer to both: Israel will be hammered whatever it does. The same people who treated silence as concealment now present the inquiry as a confession.

Researchers should update their positions and opinions when new facts emerge. That applies to Israel’s initial claim that no troops were present. The acknowledgement of IDF fire at the car must be noted. It provides no new evidence about who killed Hind or what happened around the ambulance, or what Hamas was doing at the time. This was a war zone, remember. The public record still contains no evidence establishing a provable crime.

Nine dead human beings have become raw material for clicks and political self-gratification. They have taken an investigation that establishes no guilt and sold it as a confession, using Hind Rajab’s death as a weapon before investigators have established how she died and at whose hand. Decent analysts change their position when the facts change. The ghouls simply distort the facts until they fit the verdict they wanted from the start. If credible evidence of a crime emerges, I will follow it and demand that it be prosecuted. Until then, the spectacle of people parading a dead child through the information war deserves nothing but utter contempt.

About the writer:

A veteran of three grueling tours of Afghanistan, Major Andrew Fox holds a Batchelor’s degree in Law & Politics, a Master’s in Military History & War Studies, Msc in Psychology and is currently studying for a PhD in History.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).

Israelis love to fantasize about eating humus in Damascus. However, fantasies turn into fiascoes when they collide with fiendish reality.

By Jonathan Feldstein

In the good old days, Arabs would just rant with wild unabashed rhetoric about destroying Israel outright and driving Israelis into the sea. They would threaten Israel openly, blockade shipping, eject UN “peacekeeping troops,” launch a variety of terrorist attacks, initiate global boycotts of Israel and the companies that do business with Israel, etc.  Today, while the chants of freeing “Palestine” “from the river to the sea” still mean driving Israel into the same sea and eliminating the Jewish state, their tactics have changed from outright hostility and threats to something even more nefarious but not new.

Israelis want peace. We are lured by the idea of peace. Each generation prays that it will be the last generation to serve in combat to defend ourselves from ongoing threats. Even after the Hamas attack and massacre of October 7, 2023, even though the reality vis-à-vis our Arab neighbors is clear, some still fantasize about peace and believe it is somehow achievable.

Israel has peace with Egypt and Jordan, and the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco thanks to the Abraham Accords. While three years ago, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman said peace with Israel has never been closer, the Saudis remain unwilling to pull the trigger so to speak.

Qatar who still threatens Israel, is an epicenter of radical Islam, and brainwashing the world as such through media and buying influence.

Turkey, while not Arab, has emerged as one of the major regional threats with its Islamist leader threatening to reconquer Jerusalem (and his fantasies about restoring the Ottoman Caliphate which was resoundingly defeated in WWI). Its influence in Syria has increased, bringing the threat of a land attack – though they also seek American F35s – closer than ever before. Turkey also openly supports and harbors Hamas terrorists, making no secret of its ill intent, despite being a member of NATO.

While no less alarming, Turkey’s tactics are old-school: overtly threatening, delegitimizing, and seeking alliances and weapons upon which it can realize its threats vis-à-vis Israel. Recently, reports were revealed marking a shift in the tactic but no less threatening to Israel’s existence.

While the countries involved have not yet been named, what has been revealed is that one or more Arab countries are being encouraged to make peace with Israel in order to normalize relations as if being part of the Abraham Accords, but to use this to “lull” Israelis to think that peace is real, and at the same time to build up their military preparedness to attack Israel. This is a new tactic in the past 100 years of the broader “Arab-Israel Conflict,” but it is indeed a tactic that is as old as Islam.

This week’s headlines could have come from headlines of the year 628 with Mohammed’s “Treaty of Hudaybiyha.”  What happened 1398 years ago was that Mohammed signed a truce with the stronger Quraysh tribe at Hudaibaiyah. Many of Mohammed’s followers found this humiliating. However, Mohammed had a bigger scheme planned.  As the Quraysh tribe lived through the intoxication of their “peace in our time” fantasy, the pause in fighting allowed Mohammed time to rearm and grow stronger. Two years later, he broke the treaty, attacked Mecca with a much larger force, and conquered it from the Quraysh tribe. Mecca was never the same, and Islam continued this path until today of using the model of the Treaty of Hudaibiyha to conquer other tribes, cultures, and countries.

What’s evident in this week’s headline is that as much as Israelis strive for peace agreements with our Arab and Muslim neighbors, what’s been proven time and again throughout history, is that we cannot trust them, we cannot let our guard down, and we must maintain our military and intelligence capabilities because every treaty has the potential of being Hudaibaiyah .

Countless ceasefires with Hamas and Hezbollah were not made from positions of strength or genuine desire for peace, or the well-being of their own communities. They are made from weakness in order to regroup, rearm, and return to war when the time is right. That’s what this week’s headline is about.

While Israel has peace with Egypt and Jordan in the form of signed treaties, it has been a cold peace. We have continued to see threats and military buildup, and the frequent undermining and delegitimizing of Israel, as well as publicly bashing Israel in many forums. Since the Hamas massacre of October 7, rather than standing with Israel against the Islamists who also threaten them, these two nations at ‘peace’ with Israel, have only increased their rhetoric and threats against Israel.

In Lebanon, we see hopeful signs of some sort of agreement with our northern neighbor which has largely been plagued by war since 1975. However, Hezbollah’s tight grip on Lebanon’s fractured society,  continues to plague the nation and jeopardizes its future.

The Lebanese should want peace, and signing a piece of paper would be advantageous. However, as long as Hezbollah remains dominant and a threat to Israel as well as to Lebanon, Israel will never be able to truly trust a peace agreement with them either.

So, which Arab countries are involved in this attempt at a modern Treaty of Hudaibaiyah?

 I don’t know yet but have my guesses. In the bigger picture it almost doesn’t matter because it’s the simple reality of the threat of peace with any Arab or Islamic neighbor is the same. In 1979 we were intoxicated by the idea of peace with Egypt and indeed there have been many advantages of that. The same with making peace with Jordan in 1994, theoretically freeing up the risk of threats along our longest border. Some never trusted these from the outset, and recent rhetoric and threats may prove them right.

The Abraham Accords brought normalization with Arab countries that were never in open conflict with Israel, and with which Israel does not share a border. These have been fruitful in just a few years. But just because we’re paranoid about the long-term threats as a result of making peace does not mean we’re wrong about the potential for these threats. Time will tell.

Israelis fantasize about eating humus in Damascus. From the early years of the state. After the Arabs’ resounding loss in the 1967 Six-Day War, we believed that they would eventually come to understand that Israel is not going anywhere, and if it were a conflict about land, using the failed “land for peace” model which the rejected anyway, if we “gave back” land to the vanquished Arab states, they would become rational and make peace with us.

As we maintain the need for readiness for anything, and as has been revealed this week we cannot let our guard down, we also must continue to look in the rear-view mirror. As much as we want peace, Mohammed’s model then is our tragic and treacherous reality today. 

About the writer:

Jonathan Feldstein ­­­­- President of the US based non-profit Genesis123 Foundation whose mission is to build bridges between Jews and Christians – is a freelance writer whose articles appear in The Jerusalem Post, Times of Israel, Townhall, NorthJersey.com, Algemeiner Journal, The Jewish Press, major Christian websites and more.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).

Every pillar of the genocide accusation against Israel has crumbled. The institutions that built it have suddenly lost their voices.

By Andrew Fox

Sometimes I think I am not angry enough, but the scale of the problem is almost too huge to be angry at, collectively. Towering rage must be split into smaller rages at each of the component parts of the blood libel machine.

• The fantastical Lancet “studies” salivating over hundreds of thousands of imaginary dead Gazans.
• AirWars’ pearl-clutching reports, drawing conclusions of civilian targeting in Gaza without a tenth of the evidence needed to draw said conclusions.
• Amnesty, B’tselem and all the other NGOs, releasing fraudulent genocide conclusions achieved only by changing the definition and parameters of genocide.
• The paid media squad of hacks, twisting and distorting and murdering the truth just to get one over on the Jewish state.
• South Africa, ripping apart the genocide convention at Iran’s behest, making it harder to punish real genocides in future.

The whole sorry mess sickens me, and now the great indictment of Israel is coming apart, one revelation at a time. This fact is not being reported by a single damned one of the media outlets that have spent years screeching over the war in Gaza to the exclusion of almost all else. Famine, deliberate attacks on hospitals, the slaughter of journalists and children, and systematic obstruction of aid: each allegation was broadcast as settled fact and then used to prove genocidal intent. The same newsrooms and universities that thundered these charges have shown remarkably little interest in the evidence that now destroys each of these allegations.

It is incredible. There is no aspect of the genocide allegation that has not collapsed.

Start with the famine claim.

In August 2025, the IPC used two ways of measuring malnutrition in children: weight compared with height, and the size of a child’s upper arm. Gaza had no local data showing how those two measures matched up, so the IPC used an estimate from elsewhere in the region. It assumed the weight-and-height measure would find about twice as many malnourished children as the arm measurement.

The first large Gaza survey to use both measures found the reverse. Of 1,335 children surveyed in 2026, 0.5% were identified as acutely malnourished by weight and height, while 1.3% were identified by upper-arm measurement. That survey cannot tell us exactly what conditions were like in 2025. The later survey cannot recreate conditions in 2025, but it exposes the rotten foundation beneath a verdict presented to the world as scientific certainty: a key assumption behind the famine declaration had never been tested in Gaza itself.

The food figures are equally awkward. Official COGAT-based data show that about 1.01 million tonnes of food entered Gaza between 7 October 2023 and 17 January 2025, against an estimated requirement of 825,000 tonnes. From the October 2025 ceasefire to 7 June 2026, 1.78 million tonnes entered, against a calculated need of roughly 643,000 tonnes.

Of course, food crossing a border does not guarantee it reaches every family. Roads were destroyed, distribution failed, aid was looted, and Israel’s two-and-a-half-month block on aid in spring 2025 was a grave error. However, those qualifications cannot rescue the claim of a continuous Israeli policy to starve Gaza. The quantities of food that entered Gaza are simply too large.

The hospital narrative has also disintegrated. American intelligence independently confirmed that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad used al-Shifa for command operations, weapons storage, and to hold hostages. Hamas accounts now describe armed men, including senior officers, sheltering inside the hospital during an Israeli siege. Hospitals remained protected, and Israel still had to obey the laws of war, but the moral fairy tale of innocent hospitals attacked by the brutal IDF is dead. There is now endless evidence in the public domain of Hamas using hospitals for military purposes.

The casualty statistics have fared no better. The claim that 70% of the dead were women and children became a fixture of global coverage. OCHA’s July 2026 snapshot, based on Gaza Health Ministry figures for 71,444 identified fatalities, placed those categories at 45.2 %. Adult men make up over 50% of the fatalities, from a pre-war adult male percentage of approximately 25% of the population. Not all adult men can be counted as combatants, but a figure repeatedly cited as proof of indiscriminate slaughter is now shown to be false when applied to the overall toll. The “hundreds of thousands” of dead under the rubble have likewise not materialised. That number is completely implausible, given Gaza’s mechanism for reporting the missing and the financial compensation incentives to use it.

The supposed massacre of journalists is now unravelling in the same way. A Meir Amit Centre study of 266 people listed as journalists or media workers found that 157, around 60 %, were members of or clearly affiliated with terrorist organisations. The Committee to Protect Journalists has already removed eight names after establishing that they were Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad combatants, removed another twelve for other reasons, and, after this exposure came to light, opened a full review. Other OSINT (open-source intelligence) suggests this figure of combatants is even higher.

This proves that “journalist” was often a dangerously incomplete label and that lurid claims of Israel slaughtering journalists were nothing more than propaganda. An artillery commander does not become a civilian by picking up a camera. Major outlets repeated the raw total for years, yet now they are barely reporting its collapse.

The same contamination appears across lists of healthcare workers and children. Militant obituaries have identified numerous medical workers as commanders and operatives, while faction records have revealed teenagers listed only as children despite their documented recruitment into armed groups. Recruited minors remain victims of the adults who used them, but age alone cannot establish civilian status or Israeli intent.

Hamas’s role in the aid disaster has finally forced its way into the UN’s own language. In July 2026, a senior UN official accused armed personnel affiliated with Gaza’s “de facto authorities” (i.e. Hamas) of breaking into a food distribution point and a World Food Programme warehouse, assaulting drivers and participating in a wider pattern of intimidation, obstruction and smuggling attempts. Years of sneering at Hamas’s aid diversion as Israeli propaganda ended with the UN admitting it.

Academia performed no better. The International Association of Genocide Scholars declared Israel guilty, falsely claiming that the International Court of Justice had found genocide “plausible”. The court’s former president had already explained that it made no such finding. Only 28 % of the association’s members voted. Membership was open to literally anyone, yet headlines announced the judgment of the world’s genocide scholars. The same applies to the fraudulent squad of historians newly reinventing themselves as “genocide scholars”, assuming authority their qualifications do not grant, and grandly declaring Gaza a genocide. No mea culpa from these frauds. There are books to be sold.

The repercussions are no longer theoretical. Britain recorded 3,700 antisemitic incidents in 2025, the second-highest annual total in its history; the United States recorded 6,274, with physical assaults at a record. Two Israeli embassy employees were murdered outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington. Fifteen people were slaughtered at a Chanukah celebration in Sydney. And on, and on, and on.

No newspaper article pulled those triggers, and the hatred long predates Gaza, but the relentless depiction of the Jewish state as a child-killing, famine-making engine of genocide gave old hatred a new moral vocabulary. Jews everywhere were forced to answer for accusations that the evidence can no longer sustain. The genie of antisemitism is out of the bottle, and any corrections now will not put it back. The academics, NGOs, politicians and journalists who spread the genocide blood libel without waiting for evidence (or fabricating their own) now have blood on their hands.

Israel should already have been exonerated of the blanket charge that it sought to exterminate Gaza’s civilians. Individual strikes and alleged crimes still require investigation, but genocide cannot remain the default verdict after every single factual pillar supporting it has cracked.

The record now requires urgent correction, followed by inquiries within the universities and professional bodies that lent the libel their prestige. Some of those responsible should resign.

They will not.

The people who spread these blood libels remain in post, reviewing one another’s work and hoping nobody notices the ruins of their reputations.

About the writer:

A veteran of three grueling tours of Afghanistan, Major Andrew Fox holds a Batchelor’s degree in Law & Politics, a Master’s in Military History & War Studies, Msc in Psychology and is currently studying for a PhD in History.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).

What is the connection between the bombing of the King David Hotel 80 years ago and Moshav Gan Ner in Northern Israel?

By David E. Kaplan

One of the most iconic blots in Israel’s fight against the British for independence was the bombing of the King David Hotel on July 22, 1946, eighty years ago last week.  Ninety-one people, died when explosives planted by an Irgun commando detonated in the basement of the building, which housed, among others, the British headquarters for Palestine.

An act of terrorism which killed mostly civilians,  but:

 Was it true as it was once asserted that no warning was issued? 

BUILD-UP TO A BOMBING

To understand the circumstances leading to the bombing of one of the most historically iconic architectural gems in Jerusalem, one must understand the acute desperation of the parties  to the conflict at the time.

On June 29, 1946, Britain launched Operation Agatha  — a random name choice unrelated to the ‘who done-it’ novelist  -in which 25,000 British troops participated, raiding the Jewish Agency headquarters and imposing curfews, seizing arms, and confiscating documents detailing Hagana operations and the activities of the joint resistance movement that included:

– the Hagana, the most organized group, which was aligned with the Jewish Agency;

– the Irgun, the Revisionist movement led by Menachem Begin that had initiated many military actions; and

– Lehi, which was the acronym for “Lohamei Herut Yisrael,” the smallest and most extreme of the three.

All three groups had put aside their differences and rebelled against British rule to pressure the revocation of the White Paper under Neville Chamberlain’s government which sought to appease the Arab population in Mandatory Palestine on the eve of World War II by:

– severely limiting Jewish immigration

– restricting land purchases, and

– abandoning the goal of a Jewish state.

The British arrested 2,700 individuals, including Moshe Sharett, head of the Jewish Agency’s Political Department and future prime minister; David Remez, chairman of the Jewish National Council; Yitzhak Gruenbaum, director of the Jewish Agency’s Labor Department; and Dov Yosef, a prominent Jewish Agency member and future minister. A people traumatized, the day went down in modern Jewish history as “Black Saturday” until it was superseded by the events of Saturday, Oct. 7, 2023.

The documents seized by the British were taken to the British Mandate Secretariat, located in the King David’s southern wing. As the center of British mandate rule in Palestine, the hotel was treated as a target even before Operation Agatha  and with the transfer of these compromising documents to the secretariat it hastened a strategic decision to bomb the hotel.

So, what is the connection of the bombing to the community settlement of Gan Ner, founded in northern Israel, south of Afula in 1987?

At the turn of the millennium, Lord Grenville Janner was visiting Israel from the UK and he addressed a meeting in Ra’anana where I had the opportunity to interview him.

He revealed an illuminating conversation he had with his mother following the passing of his father Sir Barnett Janner, who had preceded him as the Labour M.P. for Leicester West in the House of Commons and had also been president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews:

She said:

 “Your Dad worked all his life for Israel and there is nothing named after him. You should rectify this and go see Mr. Begin.”

“The Israeli Prime Minister! What do I tell him?” asked the son.

“I’ll tell you. Not so long ago, a colonel wrote to your father revealing that he was in the King David hotel when Begin’s organization blew it up. However he knew that Begin had warned the military authorities prior to the operation, which our British government has always denied.  He confirmed that he had been present when the warning call from the Irgun came through to the hotel switchboard confirming an effort was made to protect lives. Your father, despite being ideologically poles apart from Begin, had the courage to stand up in the House of Commons and proclaim that truth. It could no longer be publicly denied.”

JANNER DOESN’T GEL

So, Greville dutifully went off to see the Menachem Begin. The Israeli Prime Minister’s response was:

 “Sure, we are truly thankful to your father for revealing an unpopular truth in your Parliament. However, we can’t name a place in Israel ‘Janner’ – it’s not a Hebrew sounding name.”

Pondering for a few seconds, Begin then continued:

“How about Gan Ner? Sounds Israeli and more-or-less like Janner and translates into Hebrew as ‘Candel Garden’. After all, your father shone a candle of light illuminating a truth. Nu, how about it?”

It was agreed.

However, when Begin suggested that Gan Ner should be located “in Judea or Samaria,” Lord Janner said he resorted to some very unLORDly Yiddish expletives to describe what his late liberal father would have thought about that and “So today, there is a delightful settlement of some 700 souls nestled in the heart of Israel in the Jezreel Valley at the foothills of Mt. Gilboa.”

That was over two decades ago and as at 2024, Gan Ner has expanded to over 2,657 souls with its Gan Ner Sports Hall serving as the home venue for the Hapoel Gilboa Galil professional basketball team.

EPILOGUE

Unlike the warning given in 1946, there was no  warning when a mass of marauding killers crossed over from Gaza into southern Israel on October 7, 2023 massacring Jews wherever they found them.  “Black Saturday” of 1946 had an all-new meaning, and among the many murdered on October 7, was  a young resident from Gan Ner, 22-year-old “partygoer” Stav Barazani.

She attended the Nova Music Festival with her boyfriend, Asaf Edberg. The two fled together and took refuge in a police station, where they were subsequently found and murdered.

For Stav, Gan Ner or ‘Garden Candel’, burns  eternally – a flame of remembrance.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).

Where is the global outrage at new UN finding of Hamas’ obstruction of humanitarian aid?

By Kenneth Moeng Kgwadi

There has been near-total silence from many of Israel’s critics following the recent United Nations (UN) finding that Hamas obstructed the delivery of much-needed humanitarian aid to civilians in Gaza. Hamas had long portrayed the humanitarian crisis as solely the result of others denying Gazans access to necessities such as food, medicine, water, clothing, and other essential supplies. However, the UN’s finding indicates that Hamas itself also played a role in preventing civilians from accessing this aid.

Such actions serve Hamas’ political objectives by reinforcing its narrative of victimhood on the global stage. By obstructing humanitarian assistance while simultaneously presenting itself as the defender of Gaza’s population, Hamas has contributed to shaping international perceptions of the conflict in ways that advance its own strategic interests.

This is the same group of people who refused to allow people to leave endangered locations for the humanitarian zones after the Israel Defense Force (IDF) issued warnings of impending strikes. In their minds, they were being strategic in order for Israel to kill civilians and have blood on its hands, so that the world would believe that the IDF is the monster and isolate Israel in order to achieve their political and religious ends. It has previously been stated that Hamas is using innocent civilians as human shields, but to date the UN has neither seen, investigated, nor acknowledged some of these indictments.

In a strongly worded statement dated 12 July 2026, the UN Deputy Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Dr. Ramiz Alakbarov, said:

“I strongly condemn the recent obstruction of humanitarian operations in Gaza by the de facto authorities, which endangered humanitarian personnel, intimidated workers delivering lifesaving food assistance and disrupted lifesaving humanitarian assistance.”

What happened on Saturday, when armed Hamas men ambushed two truck drivers at a World Food Program warehouse, was not the first time they had stolen, hijacked, or intimidated humanitarian personnel. At the height of the war between Israel and Hamas, they stole food aid in order to feed their insurgents in the tunnels, while the remaining food aid was sold at exorbitant prices to the poor people of Gaza. Since its formation in 1987, Hamas has become accustomed to not taking any form of accountability for its actions. They always falsely blame Israel as a political strategy and people who accept this false narrative are complacent in the destitution that the people of Gaza are confronting. 

Hamas won political power in 2006 but has held elections in 20 years. It recently announced the dissolution of its governing “Emergency Committee” stepping aside to transfer administrative authority to the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza (NCAG) as part of the U.S.-brokered peace and ceasefire plan.

As a government ruling more than two million people, they have only brought terror to the lives of those people by inviting unnecessary wars, while they could have created a conducive environment for their people to thrive. It is highly unlikely that Hamas would be attacked by Israel without any provocation because Israel has invested its time and resources in establishing ties with its neighbours. In all the wars that have taken place between Israel and Hamas, it has always been Hamas that started the war, with Israel counter-attacking as a form of defense of its territory.

Since 2006, Hamas has been majorly responsible for the poor material conditions of the people of Gaza through its political divisions, incompetence, corruption, and war-mongering policies. Throughout the past 20 years, they have never gone to elections to allow the citizens to vote for their preferred government and use elections as an accountability mechanism, which means they have continuously imposed themselves on the people of Gaza to their detriment.

About the writer:

Kenneth Moeng Kgwadi is a political scientist, journalist, and research fellow at the Middle East Africa Research Institute (MEARI).

*Feature picture: Hamas Hijack. A Hamas coordinated intercepting food aid from trucks.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).

Rubio has delivered a diplomatic breakthrough. Now comes the difficult task of turning a framework into lasting security.

By  Andrew Fox

For the first time in 44 years, Israel and Lebanon have put their names to a framework agreement. Rubio is presenting it as a first step toward ending the conflict, restoring Lebanese sovereignty, dismantling Hezbollah’s military infrastructure, and creating a verifiable path toward security on Israel’s northern border. The deal reportedly begins with two pilot zones, into which the Lebanese Armed Forces will enter as Israel redeploys. At the same time, the IDF remains in Lebanese territory for as long as Hezbollah continues to pose a threat.

This agreement is a meaningful development. It is also where the hard part begins. The agreement creates a process, not an outcome, and the central question is whether anyone can impose that process and outcome on Hezbollah. According to the framework text, Israeli withdrawal is tied to the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups and the dismantling of their infrastructure. That sounds straightforward in Washington. In Lebanon, it runs straight into the political and coercive reality of Hezbollah.

Iran will not let Hezbollah go quietly into that good night. For decades, Hezbollah has been an integral part of Tehran’s regional architecture: a military asset in the plan to destroy Israel, a deterrent, and a lever in wider negotiations. It has proven its utility both by striking inside Israel’s borders and by keeping Lebanon diplomatically tied to Iran’s confrontation with Israel. From Tehran’s perspective, the disarmament of Hezbollah would be a catastrophic strategic loss.

That said, Hezbollah is far more than a line item in an Iranian budget. It has its own funding streams, including smuggling, illicit trade, and international criminal networks. Pressure on Tehran alone will not collapse Hezbollah’s operating capacity. The group has spent years building redundancy into its financing, logistics, and social control.

The pilot-zone mechanism is therefore the key test. The Lebanese army’s entry into the first two areas could be a useful beginning, especially if it establishes a precedent for state authority in places where Hezbollah has long treated Beirut’s sovereignty as an irrelevance. The problem is that Hezbollah overmatches the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in most important respects: firepower, salaries, coercive capacity, embedded networks, and willingness to intimidate local opponents.

(On the origins of Hezbollah – see here.)

The success or failure of the deal hinges on operational freedom. If Israel hands areas to the LAF and the LAF cannot prevent Hezbollah retrenchment, can Israel still act? Israeli officials are already saying the IDF will retain freedom of action in the security zone and remain until Hezbollah and other armed groups no longer pose a threat. That answers part of the Israeli security concern, but “pose a threat” is a loose definition and “no longer” may be doing some heavy lifting. Still, it also creates an obvious point of Lebanese and Hezbollah resistance: an agreement framed as restoring sovereignty may be attacked domestically as legitimising an open-ended Israeli presence.

The risk of Lebanese civil war is already more than a theoretical problem. Hezbollah has already rejected the deal, with Naim Qassem describing it as a surrender and saying the group will continue armed resistance. We have seen reports today of an Israeli drone strike in southern Lebanon, in an area outside the newly defined Israeli-held zone. In other words, the announcement has not suspended the underlying dynamics of the conflict.

The same question applies beyond the south. What happens in Hezbollah’s depth areas, including the Bekaa Valley and the logistical corridors that keep Hezbollah in the fight? Can Israel still strike weapons flows, command nodes, and rearmament infrastructure there under the terms of this deal? A framework that manages the border while leaving Hezbollah’s rear areas intact may reduce friction without meaningfully changing the balance of power in Lebanon.

There is also the view from northern Israel. If residents of Kiryat Shmona, Metula, Manara, and other border communities still believe Hezbollah can rebuild observation posts, restore launch capacity, or prepare another frontier shock, displaced Israelis will not return simply because a framework exists. They will only return if the facts on the ground change, visibly and durably.

The Lebanese side faces an equally hard political problem. Hezbollah’s power inside Shia communities rests on welfare provision, patronage, identity, coercion, and deep disillusionment with the Lebanese state. If Lebanon is serious about replacing Hezbollah’s order with state authority, it has to offer more than checkpoints, and foreign-backed security plans. It has to offer protection, services, and a political alternative that does not leave communities feeling exposed.

So, yes: this is progress. A signed Israel-Lebanon framework after 44 years is not nothing, and the pilot-zone model gives the parties something concrete to test. The right posture, however, is cautious scepticism. The success of this deal depends on enforcement, verification, Israeli freedom of action, LAF capacity, Hezbollah’s coercive response, Iran’s tolerance for strategic loss, and Lebanon’s ability to offer its Shia citizens something better than the status quo. Until those details are clear, this is a good first step but it is not yet a settlement.

About the writer:

A veteran of three grueling tours of Afghanistan, Major Andrew Fox holds a Batchelor’s degree in Law & Politics, a Master’s in Military History & War Studies, Msc in Psychology and is currently studying for a PhD in History.

*Feature picture:  ‘Sign’ of the Times.  The historic signing of the Israel-Lebanon-U.S. “Trilateral Framework Agreement” is intended to contribute to regional transformation by envisioning an eventual normalization of relations between the two states of Israel and Lebanon. (Photo: AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).

Promises, platitudes and politics is all that is left on offer from Israel’s prime minister.

By David E. Kaplan

The story about the prophet Samuel informing King Saul that his kingdom was being taken away in favor of a more worthy successor, remains a pivotal moment in the biblical narrative about the wisdom of timeous political transition. (Samuel 15 and 16)

Some 3000 years later, this narrative could not be more instructive.

What if Samuel was with us today and like all Israelis on 16 June 2026, who turned on their local TV news channels to hear their prime minister address the nation on Trump’s MoU. (Memorandum of Understanding).

After all, the issue is the number one existential issue facing the nation of Israel.

This is what the prime minister himself believes.

This is what he has been telling us and the world not for years but for decades. On this issue, he prides himself no less a prophet than Samuel.

So, what would Samuel have thought as he looked upon like all of us in disbelief?

What would he have wisely counseled while going about doing God’s work?

After so much war and  suffering, did not the people of Israel deserve to hear at least some details from their prime minister to UNDERSTAND what was happening?

Bibi offered anything but UNDERSTANDING!

Well, not quite because we UNDERSTOOD that Bibi was as lost as all of us as the only relevant insight he could share on the MoU was that he did not know yet any details.

He let us know that we knew as much as he did.

Comforting!

As we prepared to watch Bibi’s carefully choreographed address, all were anxious having been subjected to the rumors that the agreement would:

– strengthen Hezbollah

– strengthen Iran and

– weaken Israel.

As we later learned,  it did all three, virtually making Lebanon an Iranian protectorate. Bad enough for us in the center of the country but what of our fellow citizens in the north that as The Jerusalem Post editor solemnly writes would mean:

 “…the difference between a family returning to Metula, Kiryat Shmona, Minara, Shlomi, or the Galilee, and another year of empty streets, shuttered businesses, improvised schooling and lives lived in suspension.”

Did the prime minister offer to them and the rest of his listening citizenry anything beyond, promises, platitudes and politics?

Like an ailing King Saul this was a failing “King Bibi” and that we, the modern citizens of Israel, needed fresh ideas and fresh leadership.

Displaying disdain for the concerns and anxieties of his people he hardly even addressed the MoU  – the number one issue on all viewer’s minds and why they turned on their TVs to watch.

Desperate to hear some straight talk about what the burgeoning deal between the US and Iran would mean for us, all we got as most commentators agree was  a superficial “campaign speech” using the platform to highlight Bibi’s military achievements and outlining future political goals.

Clearly, most pressing for Bibi was setting the record straight following a June 2026 interview, when U.S. President Donald Trump publicly questioned whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intended to run in Israel’s upcoming fall elections, remarking “I wonder if Bibi even wants to continue.”

Bibi assured his viewers that he will be running and that “I intend to win.”

Hardly what many wanted to hear!

In a  De Gaulle mode of Je suis la France (“I am France”), Bibi believes he is indispensable to Israel – that he embodies the Jewish State.

Having endured two major conflicts with the Iranian regime, spending hours in shelters as Iranian ballistic missiles rained down indiscriminately in attempts to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible, with lives lost, homes destroyed, and nerves frayed, Israelis deserved more.

They did not get it.

Where we did get the truth was from Trump’s former partner- in-chief during his first term, VP Mike Pence who blasted the U.S.-Iran MoU, warning it contains no requirement for Iran to dismantle its nuclear or ballistic missile programs and no commitment to end support for terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

All issues critical to Israel, Pence said the deal would immediately ease sanctions, unlock billions in frozen Iranian assets, and pave the way for hundreds of billions in reconstruction funding for Iran, calling it “the kind of appeasement” seen under previous administrations.

Days later, having time to “digest”, many in Israel felt a need to belch as the final memorandum appeared even worse than the leaked version, strengthening Iran’s hold over Lebanon, ignoring Hezbollah’s disarmament and exposing a seismic gap between Trump’s declarations and the agreement he signed. This deal sounds little more than extortion – paying Iran off to open Hormuz!

While all this is going on and Israelis have made such sacrifices for their families, for their friends and for their country, thousands of Hareidi protestors are blocking highways, attacking Supreme Court Deputy President Justice Noam Sohlberg’s private residence all in support of draft dodgers. What would Samuel say listening to a representative of the Jerusalem Faction protest say:

 “We will shut down the country, and anyone who thinks they have seen it all is in for surprises. The struggle is only at its beginning, and our next steps will be far more significant.”

And what is this governments response to this anti-Zionist conduct undermining and dividing the country?  

Adding insult to injury, this government under this prime minister is advancing a proposed Basic Law that elevates Torah study to a foundational national value that will define long-term Torah study as equivalent to “meaningful service” in the IDF.

Shame, Shame, Shame.

What would Samuel of 3000 years ago say today?

He would say like most are feeling.

It is time for change.

While the mission of Lay of the Land (LotL) is to provide a wide and diverse perspective of affairs in Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world, the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by its various writers are not necessarily ones of the owners and management of LOTL but of the writers themselves.  LotL endeavours to the best of its ability to credit the use of all known photographs to the photographer and/or owner of such photographs (0&EO).

Media Watch:  Arab world is watching Israel like never before says Arab journalist.

Explaining this phenomenon is veteran Arab journalist and author Nazir Majli, widely known for his extensive career as a political correspondent covering Israel and the Middle East for the London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat. He has served as the publication’s Israel bureau chief, offering analysis and breaking news across both Arabic and international media. Reported in Ynet, Majli questions how Irael seems impervious to the negative impact many of its actions are having on Arabs in the region who were growing to the idea – once an anathema – of closer ties with Israel following the Abraham Accords. He characterizes Israel by its conduct as “a subcontractor for Hamas,” for the self-inflicted harm damage it is causing.
Let Majli explain – it is well worth a read.

David E. Kaplan
Editor, Lay of the Land

ARAB WORLD WATCHING ISRAELI MEDIA LIKE NEVER BEFORE, BUT ISRAEL IS FAILING TO UNDERSTAND WHY

By Nazir Majli

No country draws the attention of the Arab world more than Israel. Perhaps it began as “know your enemy,” but it did not remain only that. Many Arabs wanted knowledge and answers. For years, they learned about Israel mainly from hostile Arab sources, mobilized media, propaganda and incitement. Many believed that distorted picture until they encountered another truth.

Israel’s achievements in science, technology, security, high-tech and the economy raised more questions and increased the demand for reliable information.

When that demand became real hunger, Arab media faced a major challenge. Major newspapers such as Asharq Al-Awsat and Al-Hayat began employing Arab citizens of Israel as correspondents in the early 1990s. Al Jazeera later joined, followed by Al Arabiya. Today, there is no influential Arab channel or newspaper without a correspondent in Israel. Even Hezbollah-linked Al Mayadeen has commissioned reports from Arab Israeli journalists.

Since Oct. 7, 2023, the Israeli voice has reached the Arab nation live and from the source. Netanyahu’s speeches and those of his ministers have been broadcast live with simultaneous Arabic translation and later quoted in news bulletins. Studio discussions were repeatedly interrupted for statements by Israeli leaders.

Even as Israeli planes bombed universities, schools, mosques and churches, even as thousands of women and children were killed and homes were destroyed in Gaza and in West Bank refugee camps, the voice and image of IDF spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari appeared on screens in Palestinian and Arab homes. Every appearance was broadcast and translated reliably for Arab audiences.

At the same time, while Israel practiced military and self-censorship over IDF operations in Gaza and later Lebanon, and while broadcasters, reporters and commentators in Israeli studios often concealed the harsh consequences, Arab media made sure to carry the other voice — the Israeli one.

It was openness against opacity. Veteran Arab journalists remembered the 1960s, when Israel projected great self-confidence and often told the truth, while Arab media concealed it.

After 50 years of deeper and more authentic Arab familiarity with Israel, there is no longer one united Arab hostility toward Israel. There is an internal Arab conflict over Israel. The Abraham Accords were one of the clearest expressions of that change.

Hamas, inspired by Iran, attacked Israel in an effort to destroy that process. Israel’s harsh, unconventional and destructive response turned it, in effect, into a subcontractor for Hamas, helping it advance that goal and damaging the new Arab current that wanted normalization with Israel.

What had been seen as Israeli wisdom suffered a severe blow after Oct. 7.

The questions I now hear from Arab colleagues, influencers and policy figures have become much harder. Covering Israel for the Arab world has become more difficult. Israeli policy is seen as a gamble with everything on the table. Even those who hate Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah cannot digest Israel’s conduct throughout the war. Many believe this policy is helping the extremist axis.

Even friends of President Donald Trump, who strongly supports the Israeli government, do not understand how Netanyahu has placed everything in his hands.

They ask me:

 “Don’t you think about the day after? Is there no responsible body analyzing reality, examining scenarios and drawing professional conclusions about the future? How is policy made in Israel? What are the considerations? How do Israelis understand the value of good neighbors? Even if there are military achievements, why not use them for a diplomatic horizon? The first rule of wars is to end them with political achievements. Is Israel waiting for Trump to do that work, too?”

A wealthy, educated woman from Gaza, now a refugee in Egypt and known for opposing Hamas, asked me in despair: “Don’t Israelis have children? Don’t they think about their future? Do you know that my grandson talks about revenge?”

A Syrian intellectual living in Canada, who celebrated the fall of the Assad family’s regime, canceled his plan to return to Syria with his family because of the uncertainty there.

“What do the Israelis want from Syria already?” he asked. “A country without an army, extending a hand for peace and ready to cooperate against terrorism — why is it met with such hostility from Israel?”

A senior Egyptian diplomat I met in Tel Aviv told me: “You know how much I hate Iran. But Israel has been exposed. For me, it is the second Iran in the region. What it did in Gaza conveys weakness more than strength. The arrogance of its leaders and the talk of turning Israel into the most powerful force in the region and the world express a sick internal weakness.”

A senior official in Abu Dhabi, once an enthusiastic supporter of the Abraham Accords, spoke of deep shock.

“What Hamas did was not only carry out a cursed, murderous attack,” he said. “It also pulled Israelis out of judgment and strategic thinking, dragging them into sacrificing future generations to a dark future.”

He recalled Netanyahu’s 2015 comment at the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, when he was asked whether Israel would forever live by the sword and answered, “Yes.”

“Do Israelis understand what that means?” the Abu Dhabi official asked. “What leader promises his people wars for life?”

The Arab world is watching Israel more closely than ever. But attention is not support. Israel’s words are translated, its leaders are heard and its military briefings are broadcast. Yet everything Israel says is now weighed against what Arab audiences see.

The question is whether Israel understands what it is showing them.”