Belgium (Brussels Morning Newspaper), Just hours after Hamas released a video showing two hostages in Gaza, the streets of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and other Israeli cities filled with thousands of demonstrators, their unified voices demanding the release of the captives. The video, an edited piece just shy of three minutes, featured Omri Miran and Keith Siegel directly addressing their families and urging the public to intensify their efforts to influence government action. Omri Miran, 46, visibly constrained and earnest, implored, “Keep protesting so that there is an agreement now,” his plea resonating with the throngs of supporters back home.
The video, which the Israeli government condemned as a tool of psychological warfare by Hamas, concluded with a chilling message from the militant group: “Your Nazi leaders don’t care about the fate or feelings of your captive sons. Do what is necessary before it is too late.” This stark accusation was intended to deepen the wedge of fear and urgency among the Israeli populace and their leaders.
As the sun set over Jerusalem on that tense Saturday evening, the air was thick with a mix of despair and determination. One of the family members of the hostages addressed the gathered crowd with a fervor that cut through the evening air, “The people are alive,” he shouted, his voice breaking with emotion. “They are looking at us, alive, and they are begging us to free them from this hell.”
Over in Tel Aviv, another scene of advocacy unfolded as Dani Miran, father of Omri, took to the stage. His message was direct and desperate as he addressed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a plea that was both personal and political: “Agree to an agreement, any agreement you can think of,” he cried out. “I beg you and I urge you: Make the decision now!”
Amidst the cries for action, the demonstrations were also a platform for profound frustration and anger towards the current administration. The calls were not just for a resolution to the hostage situation but also for broader political change. Many among the crowd were openly demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the immediate call for new elections. Their grievances extended beyond the Prime Minister; Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, members of the Israeli war cabinet, also faced sharp criticism. Accusations were loud and clear: they had failed to achieve the war aims and allowed Netanyahu to undermine potential deals that could have secured the hostages’ release.
Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, often vocal about their support for negotiating with Hamas, seemed to be leaning towards a swift resolution in the ongoing discussions. Their stance, known for its relatively moderate tone, suggested that they might step down from their positions in the war cabinet if substantial progress failed to materialize soon. This speculation hung in the air, adding another layer of tension to the already charged atmosphere.
Meanwhile, the prospect of a new agreement between Israel and Hamas remained shrouded in uncertainty. Just the day prior, Hamas had announced its willingness to consider an Israeli proposal. This proposal, a counter to earlier demands from Hamas, suggested a partial ceasefire in the Gaza Strip coupled with the release of hostages. Israeli media sources revealed that Netanyahu seemed open to a “humanitarian deal” which would involve releasing 33 hostages—a reduction from the 40 initially demanded by Hamas—in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. This proposal, however, stopped short of committing to a permanent ceasefire, leaving critical issues unresolved.
As discussions continued, Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz took to national television to announce a significant, albeit potentially temporary, shift in military strategy. “If there is an agreement, we will suspend the operation,” Katz declared on Channel 12 TV, referring to a planned offensive on the city of Rafah, contingent upon the successful release of the hostages. Yet, he remained noncommittal about the duration of such a postponement, highlighting it as a likely focal point in the ongoing negotiations with Hamas.
The negotiations were not just a bilateral affair. Regional dynamics played a crucial role, with Egypt and Qatar acting as mediators. Recently, Egypt had conveyed positive signals about the progress of these talks. However, this optimism was tempered by a history of similar hopeful commencements that had failed to culminate in a concrete resolution.
Adding to the complex international involvement, Qatar expressed its growing frustration through the words of Majed Al-Ansari, a spokesman for the Qatari Foreign Ministry. In his first interview with an Israeli media outlet, Al-Ansari voiced his exasperation: “We wanted to save human lives, but Qatar has become the plaything of those who want to preserve their political future,” he told “Haaretz”. This sentiment underscored a deepening weariness with the repetitive cycles of negotiations that seemed to serve political rather than humanitarian ends. Al-Ansari’s stern warning that Qatar might reassess its role as a mediator if the parties did not engage more earnestly, underscored the critical state of the talks.
On the ground in Israel, the mixture of hope for progress and skepticism about the intentions of both Hamas and the Israeli leadership continued to fuel public unrest. The emotional toll on the families of the hostages and the broader Israeli community was palpable, as each day brought with it the heavy burden of uncertainty and the lingering fear of a conflict prolonged by political maneuvering.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. As always, we remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.Sincerely, The Brussels Morning Team
