Casualties (+1)
Warrant Officer G’haleb Sliman Alnasasra, 35, a tracker in the Gaza Division’s Northern Brigade, was killed and five others were wounded, three of them seriously, in a Hamas attack in the northern Gaza Strip on Saturday afternoon. He was the first soldier to be killed in Gaza since the Israel Defense Forces resumed its offensive against Hamas in the Strip on March 18.
According to the Times of Israel: According to an initial IDF probe, at 12:58 p.m., a group of soldiers driving along an IDF logistics road, close to an army encampment inside Gaza, came under fire by Hamas operatives. The operatives, who had come out of a tunnel shaft, launched an RPG at the unarmored army vehicle.
1,863 Israelis have been killed including 848 IDF soldiers since October 7th (+1 since Wednesday)
The South: 411 IDF soldiers (+1 since Wednesday) during the ground operation in Gaza have been killed. The toll includes a police officer killed in a hostage rescue mission and two Defense Ministry civilian contractors.
The North: 132 Israelis (84 IDF soldiers) have been killed during the war in Northern Israel
The West Bank: 63 Israelis (27 IDF and Israeli security forces)
Additional Information (according to the IDF):
2,603 (+3 since Wednesday) IDF soldiers have been injured during ground combat in Gaza, including at least 499 who have been severely injured.
5,780 (+7 since Wednesday) IDF soldiers have been injured since the beginning of the war, including at least 859 who have been severely injured.
The Gaza Casualty Count:
According to unverified figures from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry, 50,810 total deaths have been reported, with a civilian/combatant ratio: 1:1.
[MUST READ] Report: Questionable Counting: Analysing the Death Toll from the Hamas-Run Ministry of Health in Gaza by Andrew Fox with The Henry Jackson Society
On October 7th, Ohad Hemo with Channel 12 Israel News – the country’s largest news network, a leading expert on Palestinian and Arab affairs, mentioned an estimate from Hamas: around 80% of those killed in Gaza are members of the organization and their families.”
Read this well documented piece from Tablet published in March: How the Gaza Ministry of Health Fakes Casualty Numbers
The Associated Press, an outlet with a demonstrated anti-Israel bias, conducted an analysis of alleged Gaza death tolls released by the Hamas-controlled "Gaza Health Ministry." The analysis found that "9,940 of the dead – 29% of its April 30 total – were not listed in the data" and that "an additional 1,699 records in the ministry’s April data were incomplete and 22 were duplicates."
The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs publishes official details on every civilian and IDF casualty.
Watch
From The Free Press and the Center for Peace Communications: In Beit Lahia, a town on the northern edge of Gaza hit hard by Israeli air strikes—and by Hamas tactics of embedding fighters among civilians—the people have had enough. Inside the latest—and so far boldest—wave of anti-Hamas protests in northern Gaza.
Israel/Middle East Related Articles
Catering to Qatar by Jonathan Schanzer with Commentary Magazine
On March 7, the podcaster Tucker Carlson released an interview with Qatar’s prime minister, Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani. It was a complete and fully conscious whitewashing of the regime’s transgressions in recent years.
The fawning treatment of Qatar did not begin with the new Trump administration.
Set aside the undeniable fact that Qatar is a financial patron of both Hamas and the Taliban. Qatar is an autocratic, Islamist, terrorist‑supporting, human‑rights‑abusing regime that should not have any hand in U.S. foreign policy… Yet it somehow has gained immense influence in American politics.
This is how it came to be that American war fighters prosecuted our War on Terror from a country that sponsors terrorism.
Qatar, as the U.S. intelligence community had long known, was a haven for future 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheikh Mohammed. He had wired money from Qatar to al-Qaeda operatives in advance of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
In that same year, the Qatari regime created the Al Jazeera television network. The satellite station went on to become a vitriolic mouthpiece for al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other jihadi factions Washington sought to counter after the 9/11 attacks.
In 2012, Qatar became the home of Hamas leader Khaled Mashal. The Palestinian terror group’s external leadership moved to Qatar after being jettisoned by the Jordanian and Syrian regimes over the preceding years (even as Hamas itself remained the governing body in Gaza). Qatar was a natural place for Hamas to land, given the regime’s longstanding support for the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas is a splinter faction of the Islamist movement).
The emir of Qatar… visited Gaza and pledged $400 million in assistance.
Qatar soon became home to the notorious ‘Taliban Five’… The Qataris facilitated the swap with American acquiescence, even as leaked cables show U.S. officials had long worried that the Taliban could ‘exploit Qatar as a fundraising locale.’
As ties with Qatar deepened, U.S. officials continued to express concern. In 2016, the Treasury Department’s top terrorism-finance official, Adam Szubin, stated that the Qataris demonstrated “a lack of political will . . . [to] enforce their combating terrorist financing laws.” In February 2017, Daniel Glaser, who had recently stepped down as assistant secretary of the Treasury, told an audience at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies that “designated terrorist financiers” were “operating openly and notoriously” in Qatar.
And so it came to be that Qatar supported jihadi causes across the Middle East while simultaneously working with Washington at the highest levels. Doha insists that the Hamas and Taliban offices were established at the behest of the American government, to engage with the two terrorist groups. While officials have since thanked Doha for their services, there is no record of the U.S. government ever requesting these offices to be established.
On April 14, 2021, President Joe Biden sealed Afghanistan’s fate, announcing a full withdrawal. Biden committed the catastrophic mistake of removing military assets before evacuating American civilians. Four months later, on August 15, 2021, the Taliban entered Kabul and the Afghan government collapsed.
Even after this calamity, Qatar continued to serve as interlocutor between the United States and terrorists or terrorist regimes. Inexplicably, Washington continues to thank Doha for its services, even when the outcome is poor.
Law firms, lobby groups, public relations shops, and other levers of influence are all on generous Qatari retainers. Hedge funds, mutual funds, joint ventures, and other generators of American wealth are similarly beholden to Qatari cash. Large parcels of real estate in one city after the next have been gobbled up by Qatari-backed developers. And that’s just what we know.
Estimates suggest that Qatar has gifted anywhere from $7 billion to $20 billion to institutions of higher learning… researchers are now combing through data revealing that Qatar has invested untold sums in K‑12 public schools as well.
Money is no object for Qatar… the regime can spend money on soft power and influence without limit.
What’s needed now are government mechanisms to monitor the flow of Qatari cash and to minimize the effect of the country’s operations… Qatar needs to be sidelined as a negotiator for the terrorist groups it funds.
Link: Catering to Qatar
The Iran nuclear talks are Trump’s decisive moment on military strikes by Daniel B. Shapiro with Atlantic Council
Trump has set a sixty‑day target to reach a deal. … But if negotiations peter out and the looming re‑imposition of sanctions—the snapback—occurs, with an Iranian response, Washington will reach a crisis. For Trump, that will be the point of decision over escalation.
His aims include fully dismantling Tehran’s nuclear program… intrusive international inspections of all declared nuclear sites and undeclared sites in perpetuity with no sunsets.
There are three options likely to emerge: a limited ‘less‑for‑less’ deal that only freezes Iran’s program; no deal, leading to snapback sanctions and a sharper knife’s edge; or a military strike against the nuclear program.
Iran sits on the threshold of nuclear breakout—the ability to produce a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium to assemble a nuclear device… In the face of these realities, a limited deal would be at odds with the urgency Trump has repeatedly conveyed.
Israel’s retaliatory strikes against Iran on Oct. 26 2024… struck a psychological blow, leaving Iran aware that it was highly vulnerable to additional strikes and had a significantly reduced ability to protect key locations, including nuclear sites.
Israel’s decimation of Hezbollah in the fall of 2024 eliminates a major response option Iran had long counted on to deter an Israeli or U.S. strike… That Iranian deterrent is gone.
The most effective option may be a combined U.S.–Israeli operation… A combined strike that divides up key tasks, maximizing each country’s unique capabilities, might achieve the most significant setback of the Iranian nuclear program and, importantly, limit Iran’s ability and incentive to respond.
Link: The Iran nuclear talks are Trump’s decisive moment on military strikes
Strategic Alternatives for the Gaza Strip: By Ofer Guterman with the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
The executive summary is provided below with a link to the full report at the bottom.
After approximately a year and a half of war in the Gaza Strip, Israel stands at a crossroads and must formulate a relevant strategy regarding the future of the Strip. It faces a rather grim range of alternatives, all problematic in their implications and feasibility:
encouraging “voluntary emigration”—an option whose strategic consequences have not been thoroughly examined in Israel and whose feasibility is low;
occupying the Strip and imposing prolonged military rule—while this may severely weaken Hamas, it does not guarantee its eradication, and comes with the risk of endangering the Israeli hostages held by Hamas and incurring other significant long-term costs to Israel;
establishing a moderate Palestinian governance in the Strip with international and Arab support—an option whose costs to Israel are low, but currently lacks an effective mechanism for demilitarizing the Strip and dismantling Hamas’s military capabilities;
and finally, the possibility that political and military stabilization initiatives will fail, leaving Hamas in power.
The main tension arising from the analysis lies in the desire to ensure the collapse of Hamas rule and dismantle its military wing, versus the heavy implications for Israel of occupying and maintaining control over the Strip for an extended period. Simultaneously, it appears that the new foreign policy directions of the Trump administration is also influencing the management of the crisis in Gaza, thereby narrowing Israel’s political maneuvering space and increasing its dependence on the interests and dictates of the US administration.
Additionally, while the administration seems to be committed to neutralizing the military threat posed by Hamas, it also would like the war in the Strip to end and to promote regional vision of peace and economic prosperity, aligning with its competition with China for global hegemony.
Under these circumstances, the final recommendation of this document is to implement a dual-pronged strategy combining military and political actions:
an intensive and sustained military effort, aimed not only at eroding Hamas and its capabilities but also at laying the groundwork for the stabilizing of an governing alternative to Hamas;
and in parallel, a political initiative to gradually construct a moderate governing alternative in the Gaza Strip, which would also support and accelerate the success of the military effort.
The analysis suggests that only two strategic alternatives are realistically available to Israel: the conquest of the Gaza Strip and imposition of military rule, or alternatively, the establishment of a Palestinian technocratic administration under Arab and international auspices.
The strategic confusion Israel now faces regarding Gaza’s future is largely the result of a flawed policy adopted since the beginning of the war, which hesitated to present a clear end-state and has been inconsistent in its decisions over the course of the months: dragging out the military campaign and deploying the army in a way that ensured Hamas’s survival; refraining from promoting an alternative to Hamas rule; and insufficient insistence on a comprehensive hostage deal, which could have by now freed Israel’s hands to act more freely in Gaza.
Influence the design of a governance alternative to Hamas rather than oppose it (If you can’t beat them, join them).
Tie the arrangement in Gaza to a normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia as part of a broader move to expand the Abraham Accords and end the Israeli–Arab conflict, shifting the region toward a historic victory for the moderate alliance led by the United States.
Prepare for the conquest of the Gaza Strip, but only as part of a broader strategy—not as a desired end-state or goal in itself.
Maintain ongoing operational freedom of action in Gaza to enable continuous suppression of Hamas and other terror groups, and to safeguard Israel’s security interests.
The strategy proposed here is admittedly more complex to implement compared to the one-dimensional alternatives currently prevalent in the Israeli discourse. However, this strategy is realistic in terms of its practical feasibility, and unlike other alternatives, it holds the potential to shape Gaza within a broader vision of Israeli national interests, while managing risks and resources in a more intelligent and balanced way: balancing security needs and risks in Gaza with other arenas; leveraging the diplomatic opportunity to end the Israeli–Arab conflict and create a regional alliance that would historically improve Israel’s strategic standing; and addressing the serious ramifications of the Gaza issue for Israel’s economy, politics, and society.
After Trump 'Veto,' Dealing with Iran is Trickier for Israel by Ambassador Michael Oren
Irrespective, "who leaked" is the wrong question. The real one is: what can Israel do now that an Israeli military option appears definitively off the table, while U.S. and Iranian envoys are negotiating a new nuclear deal?
The worst, we must say, is a deal that once again enriches Iran and enables it to rebuild Hamas and Hezbollah and restore a pro-Iranian regime in Damascus—all without dismantling a single centrifuge. Such a deal, we must emphasize, will highlight American weakness in the Middle East and strengthen Russia and China.
If, despite Israel’s warnings, a new nuclear deal is concluded, Israel must enter into an intimate dialogue with the White House on ways Israel can nevertheless defend itself. These must include ironclad U.S. security guarantees and assurances that we will always have the means to defend ourselves against Iranian aggression.
We must, for the first time, be permitted to purchase strategic bombers and train our crews to fly them.
We must reach agreements with the United States regarding the permanent demilitarization of Gaza and southern Lebanon.
The intimate dialogue is all the more important in view of the fact that, in contrast to the past, Israel cannot count on Congress to oppose a new nuclear deal. The Democrats will support any deal that closely resembles Obama’s while the Republicans will refrain from opposing Trump. Israel has no choice but to make our case directly to the Oval Office.
Link: After Trump 'Veto,' Dealing with Iran is Trickier for Israel
Antisemitism
[MUST READ] From the River to the Campus: How the Arab-Israeli conflict was shipped to the West while casting the Jew as villain. An analysis and a response. By Naya Lekht in the Jewish Journal
How does one export the Arab-Israeli conflict to the West on terms that are pro-Palestinian? This question underscores a critical issue: while many in the West are engrossed in resolving the conflict, they often fail to recognize that a viable solution is unattainable as the conflict itself frames Israel as guilty of crimes against humanity. On such terms, the only solution is, indeed, an “intifada revolution,” annihilation of all of Israel by violent means.
Whether dressed in the language of the Jew-puppeteer who secretly controls the world from “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” or through Marxist, anti-colonial narratives that portrayed Jews, via Israel and Zionism, as oppressors, the Jew once again found himself recast in the role of villain, doing what he is accused of doing best: destabilizing world order.
In search of fertile ground to cultivate anti-Jewish sentiment through this conflict, academia — already primed by the “long march through the institutions” — offered ideal conditions to incubate and “center Palestine.” Replete with post-colonialism theory that condemns ‘the West’ for all ills of the world…
But what mechanisms would the faculty within these departments use in order to spread the anti-Zionist message, core to “centering Palestine?” Having arrived at U.S. campuses in 2001, the key mechanism used to “center Palestine” and denormalize Israel and Zionism is BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions).
…the Council of Palestinian National and Islamic Forces (PNIF) released a statement entitled “A Call for Comprehensive Confrontation,” outlining the three main “nonviolent” ways to achieve victory against the Jewish state: 1) advocating for the Palestinian “right of return”; 2) boycotting Israel; and 3) employing anti-normalization of anything Israel or Zionist.
Of the three methods outlined by PNIF, it is the anti-normalization of Zionism and Israel that is the most effective vessel used to propagate anti-Israeli sentiment.
….citizens of the United States may be enacting foreign laws on American soil. How so? Labeled as a “Powerful Weapon in the Fight Against Peace,” anti-normalization laws within the Arab world “stipulate that any type of contact between Arab and Israeli citizens is prohibited, with punishment ranging from a few months in prison to death.”
According to the BDS Movement’s own declaration, “normalization, tatbee in Arabic, means dealing with or presenting something that is inherently abnormal, such as oppression and injustice, as if it were normal.” This view labels Israel and Zionists as “inherently abnormal,” making normalization with the sole Jewish country unacceptable.
While supporters of the anti-normalization BDS campaign frame their actions as political activism, the campaign’s demonization of Israel mirrors the Nazi effort to isolate Jews.
Similarly, it is not random that among the prominent demands from faculty groups that support Palestine is “to dismantle Study Abroad in Israel programs” because shutting down events about Israel, pro-Israel speakers, and going after Jewish organizations such as Hillel on campus is exactly how one were to implement anti-normalization mandates on U.S. campuses: PACBI (The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel) instructs its supporters to avoid “any form of academic and cultural cooperation, collaboration, or joint projects with Israeli institutions,” which translates to a concerted effort to kick Zionists and Zionist institutions off campuses.
While the accelerated success of anti-normalization activities may be traced to the presence of FJP, it does not fully address a larger problem: what is it about the institution of higher learning that allows for the spread of racist laws inherent in the wider Arab world?
What is certain is that academic fields with a particularly high proclivity for using post-colonialism theory tend to be at the forefront of academic BDS.
…the departments with the largest numbers of boycotters were English or literature, followed by ethnic studies, history, and gender studies.
As the disciple of English developed to incorporate research interests that privileged systems of power, so too did the profile of the English professor evolve. Those who operate the vehicle that spreads anti-normalization, namely professors from the Humanities disciplines, firmly believe that their job on campus is not to be transmitters of knowledge but activators of social change.
…while the effort to indoctrinate against Israel may have arrived well over 20 years ago, the changing nature of academic disciplines coupled with cancel culture successfully transformed universities to become epicenters for enacting anti-normalization campaigns inherent to the Arab world.
In sum, while our universities have increasingly become centers for de-normalizing the Jewish state, the minds of thousands of students are increasingly being won by a movement that positions itself as “nonviolent.”
In America and the broader Western world, Jews are losing the narrative battle. We do not have an anti-normalization campaign, nor do we employ a mechanism such as BDS to call out the violation of human rights within the Muslim world. The reason is straightforward: unlike Israel, which listens to its willing executioners, Jews in the West are not hearing their assassins.
For example, organizations like Hillel continue to promote dialogue on campuses even after Oct. 7.
I can hear the chorus of humanistic Jews, Jews who have emerged scarred from the Diaspora, inflicted by the illness of wanting to be loved, rebuke my invitation to go on the “offense.” If we employ the tactics of our detractors, then we are no better. This, however, would only be true if the two sides are equal.
There is nothing abhorrent to going on the “offense” and employing tactics that would call out the inhumane face of Hamas, and by extension, Muslim states that do not uphold the values we hold dear to us.
…we can take the conn and save academia from the storm by understanding that antisemitism is not a threat to the Jews, but a symptom of a disease. The host body, here being academia, has been infected by antisemitism but only because its immunity has been suppressed by the devastation of higher education becoming increasingly politicized.
To stay on course, we must call out those who have hijacked the academy: groups like Faculty for Justice in Palestine, Students for Justice in Palestine, Faculty Against Genocide, and faculty members who see themselves as activists first, and educators second.
The Firebombing of Josh Shapiro’s Home Was a Pro-Palestinian Terror Attack by Noah Rothman in National Review
The security footage paints a harrowing portrait of the attack. The alleged arsonist scaled an exterior perimeter fence, used a hammer to shatter a window, and hurled a Molotov cocktail into the room where the governor and his guests were holding the Seder just hours earlier … Its ultimate goal was unlikely to end with mere property destruction.
According to police, the 38‑year‑old suspect targeted Shapiro as an act of vengeance for the governor’s pro‑Israel politics … Balmer said he needed to ‘stop having my friends killed’ and that ‘our people have been put through too much by that monster,’ reading as if from a script.
The suspect appeared to believe that he had meted out a righteous blow for justice, and he seems convinced that the community of pro‑Palestinian activists would celebrate his actions and martyrdom.
Democratic politicians have established for themselves an extensive record of claiming that acts of political violence can be traced back to the rhetoric exhibited by their domestic opponents. They should be held to their own standard.
The party has tried to have it both ways—distancing itself from the anti‑Israel agitators just enough to plausibly claim mutual animosity while courting the activist fringes at almost every turn. There ought to be a reckoning with the extent to which Shapiro’s party coddled this extreme movement.
Link: The Firebombing of Josh Shapiro’s Home Was a Pro-Palestinian Terror Attack
The Lies About Josh Shapiro Have Consequences: An attack on the Pennsylvania governor shows the dangers of tendentious misrepresentations. By Yair Rosenberg in The Atlantic
Photos from the scene captured the charred remains of the religious books they’d used that evening. In an affidavit for a search warrant, police said that the assailant had told a 911 operator that he’d targeted Shapiro “for what he wants to do to the Palestinian people.” Balmer later told police that he’d planned to beat the governor with a hammer had he encountered him.
Attempting to murder an American Jew over the actions of completely different Jews thousands of miles away in the Middle East is textbook anti-Semitism. But in the case of Shapiro, it’s particularly perverse, because the governor supports Palestinian statehood and has been a harsh critic of Israel’s leadership.
Given Shapiro’s actual positions, how might someone get the impression that he is somehow responsible for Israel’s actions and in lockstep with its leadership?
In an open democracy, there is nothing wrong with forcefully advocating for Palestinians or against Israel—whatever the Trump administration might say. But there was something very wrong with the Genocide Josh campaign. As political commentators noted at the time, no such campaign was marshaled against any other prospective vice-presidential front-runner, despite all of them having the same—or more hawkish—views on Israel as Shapiro.
Put another way, the Genocide Josh movement singled out a Jewish candidate for censure over Israel while tendentiously misrepresenting his stance on the issues in order to discredit him. This was not an expression of traditional sharp-elbowed American political discourse, but rather an echo of ancient antipathies.
In the aftermath of such incidents, there is often an unfortunate impulse to stigmatize mental illness as the source of societal prejudice. But those struggling with internal demons don’t originate our external ones; they reflect them.
In their confusion and pain, such individuals latch on to those already targeted by the broader culture and its preexisting pathologies, showing us not who they are, but who we are. This is why deeply troubled people—from Kanye West (now known as Ye) to the murderously disturbed—have more often gone after Jewish people than, say, the Amish. Weakened minds tend to be overtaken by strong currents.
Crimes like the one against Shapiro hold up a mirror to our collective biases. In this case, it appears that high-profile deceptions and double standards about a Jewish politician’s Israel stance contributed to an unwell person trying to kill him.
So-called Israel-Hamas, Ukraine war ‘experts’ spew false info on Joe Rogan’s podcast — There has to be a standard by Douglas Murray in The New York Post
Two weeks ago, Rogan had his mate Dave Smith on yet again for a long podcast.
But for my return to the show, the deal was that I could come on only if Dave Smith was — once again — in the studio. As if Joe didn’t want to be unaccompanied. Or that Joe thought it was I — of all his guests — who must be challenged.
The first reason was that from the outset, I challenged Joe on his choice of guests and why he had been giving a platform to only one side of a debate — and a very conspiratorial one at that. He and Smith were immediately defensive.
From the COVID lab leak to the Hunter Biden laptop, we have lived through years after which distrust of experts has become inevitable.
Yet that doesn’t mean that expertise does not exist. It does not mean that a comedian can simply hold himself out as a Middle East expert and should be listened to as if he has any body of work.
…many people seem to think that what I mean is that they are not allowed to have an opinion. That is wrong. I think they are. It’s just that there should be a price to pay for spreading bulls–t. And part of that price is that you should be called out.
If I had gone on Rogan’s podcast and held myself out as an expert in MMA fighting, I suspect he would have noticed. If I had kept making mistake after mistake and shown ignorance piled upon ignorance, I think he’d say, “Hey, you don’t seem to be very knowledgeable about this.” And he’d be right. So why is it hard to grasp that something similar applies in other areas?
Journalism has had its own meltdown in recent years. But it doesn’t mean that we don’t have standards. Much though that might amaze some people. What the standards are in the new media — especially on podcasts — is still being worked out. But there must be some. Otherwise the new media will lead people into errors and evils far greater than the old media could ever dream of.
MIT student Talia Khan posts on X: For MIT‘s admitted students weekend this weekend the anti-Israel students distributed fake campus maps identifying buildings with ties to Israel or Jewish donors—encouraging harassment at those locations, and echoing the Boston Mapping Project. This is a roadmap for violent harassment against everyone who works in those buildings, not just Jews. It isn’t protest. It’s incitement.
Hostage Update (no change)
[WARNING: EMOTIONAL VIDEO]
From the Times of Israel: Hamas on Saturday released a propaganda video of hostage Elkana Bohbot — the third time it has published footage of the captive held in Gaza. Shortly after the video was published by the terror group, Bohbot’s family approved the publication of the video in Israeli media, which does not share images of hostages without their families’ permission.
They forced him to fake a phone call with his family—who he hasn’t spoken to in 550+ days. This is one of the most sick acts of psychological terrorism I’ve seen. We can’t let him stay another minute in this hell.
Bohbot, 36, was kidnapped from the Nova music festival on October 7,
There are now currently 58 hostages taken on 10/7 currently in captivity in Gaza (there are 59 hostages remaining in total)
38 hostages were released in the first phase of the 2025 cease fire agreement (including 5 Thai nationals)
24 hostages will remain in captivity after Phase I and have not been declared dead.
5 hostages are Americans: Meet the Five American Hostages Still Held By Hamas: Edan Alexander is assumed to be alive, Itay Chen is assumed to have been killed on 10/7, and Gadi Haggai, Judi Weinstein Haggai, and Omer Neutra have been confirmed to have been killed.
4 are soldiers
7 are residents of the Gaza border communities
11 were abducted from the Nova music festival
2 are foreign workers: Bipin Joshi from Nepal and Pinta Nattapong from Thailand
On October 7th, a total of 251 Israelis were taken hostage.
During the ceasefire deal in November of 2023, 112 hostages were released.
193 hostages in total have been released or rescued
The bodies of 40 hostages have been recovered, including 3 mistakenly killed by the military as they tried to escape their captors.
8 hostages have been heroically rescued by troops alive
Of the 59 hostages still theoretically in Gaza
31 hostages have been confirmed dead and are currently being held in Gaza
Thus, at most, 28 living hostages could still be in Gaza.
Hamas is now holding the body of 1 IDF soldier who was killed in 2014 (Lt. Hadar Goldin’s body remains held in the Gaza Strip)
Regular sources include JINSA, FDD, IDF, AIPAC, The Paul Singer Foundation, The Institute for National Security Studies, the Alma Research and Education Center, Yediot, Jerusalem Post, IDF Casualty Count, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Institute for the Study of War, Tablet Magazine, Mosaic Magazine, The Free Press, and the Times of Israel