Shiri Bibas not among returned hostages, Israeli military says, accusing Hamas of ‘serious violation'
One of the four bodies returned by Hamas to Israel on Thursday is not that of Shiri Bibas, Israel's military has said, calling it a 'violation of utmost severity' of a ceasefire deal that was already precarious.
The Israeli military confirmed that two of the bodies belonged to Bibas' children, Ariel and Kfir, in the early hours of Friday. However, it added 'During the identification process, it was determined that the additional body received is not that of Shiri Bibas, and no match was found for any other hostage. This is an anonymous, unidentified body.'
'We demand that Hamas return Shiri home along with all our hostages,' it said.
There was no immediate response from Hamas.
Bibas and her children – who Hamas says were killed in an Israeli airstrike in the early days of the war – became a symbol of the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023. The body of the fourth hostage has been confirmed as that of 85-year-old Oded Lifshitz, according to his family.
Friday's statement came hours after Israeli prime Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the military to conduct an 'intense operation' against 'terror hubs' in the occupied West Bank after a series of explosions on three parked buses in Bat Yam, a city outside Tel Aviv, that authorities said was a suspected terrorist attack. No injuries were reported.
Explosives were found on two other buses but did not detonate, police spokesperson Asi Aharoni told Channel 13 TV. Israeli police said the five bombs were identical and equipped with timers, and bomb squads were defusing the unexploded bombs.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the explosions.
Israel has been carrying out intensified raids on the occupied West Bank since October 2023, killing hundreds of Palestinians. At least 51 Palestinians including seven children have been killed an a crackdown on the northern West Bank launched by Israel on 21 January, according to the UN.
Thursday's handover of bodies is to be followed by the return of six living hostages on Saturday, in exchange for hundreds more Palestinian prisoners and detainees, expected to be women and minors detained by Israeli forces in Gaza.
Negotiations for a second phase, expected to cover the return of about 60 remaining hostages, less than half of whom are believed to be alive, and a full withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip to allow an end to the war, are expected to begin in the coming days.
Reuters and Associated Press contributed to this report
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
44 minutes ago
- Spectator
Bibi has run rings around Trump
Donald Trump likes to see himself as the Great Negotiator but on this occasion Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, appears to have outplayed him. Since April, the Israeli leader had been pressurising Trump and his White House aides to give him the green light for a large-scale attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. While Netanyahu was reassured by his military advisers that Israel could go it alone to target Iran's four nuclear sites, he wanted not just US backing but also American firepower to achieve what Trump and his predecessors all agreed on: that Iran must never be allowed to build a nuclear bomb. However, Trump entered the White House for his second term on a no-war ticket. He announced his intention to bring the war in Ukraine to an end and sent his special envoy and billionaire friend Steve Witkoff to pave the way and to divide up his spare time to sort out the war in Gaza, too. Neither of these objectives have yet to bear fruit. The nuclear challenge presented by Iran was also high on Trump's list. But he made it clear his priority was to be a peacemaker. He wanted to avoid conflagration. This was a message that clearly didn't go down well with Netanyahu who apparently told every American official who came to Jerusalem and in every phone call to the White House that this was the moment, the unique moment, when Iran's nuclear sites could be bombed before it was too late. Netanyahu and his complex operational plan to attack Iran, codenamed Operation Rising Lion, which had taken months, if not years, to develop and hone, was ready to launch two months ago. But Trump demurred. He wanted Witkoff to keep going with diplomatic efforts. He made his case to Netanyahu earlier this week when he said he wanted Witkoff to complete his round of negotiations with the Iranians in Oman. One more meeting to give peace a chance had been set for Sunday. However, Trump was becoming increasingly aware that his appeals were falling on deaf ears. Operation Rising Lion was as good as set in stone. Mossad agents who had covertly entered Iran were in position to launch deadly drone attacks on the homes of the top hierarchy of Iranian generals and nuclear scientists. The call between Trump and Netanyahu on Thursday was, by the sound of it, a one-way declaration by the Israeli prime minister. Israel was going to bomb Iran, and he hoped Trump would not stand in his way. Trump came away from that conversation, knowing that within hours 200 Israeli jet fighters and bombers would be hitting pre-selected targets in Iran. It was a fait accompli. There was nothing Trump could have done. He had been out-negotiated. In one way, it was his fault. He had set a timetable of 60 days for Iran to reach a diplomatic deal to resolve the nuclear crisis. Thursday was the last day of Trump's own timeline. It was a gift for Netanyahu. All he had to do was remind Trump of his own deadline and then push the button for Operation Rising Lion. There has been no transcript of the Thursday phone call. But Marco Rubio, secretary of state and acting national security adviser, confirmed that Washington had been notified of the imminent attack on Iran. After the attack began, a further statement was made which emphasised that the US played no role in the strikes. The challenge for Trump now is whether the US should switch from this non-participant position to being a full player. Only the US possesses the type of weapon system capable of penetrating the concrete and reinforced steel to reach the underground facilities where Iran carries out its most sensitive and critical nuclear research and development programmes. Even the US Air Force's 30,000lb Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) dropped by B-2 stealth bombers would have difficulty detonating close enough to these facilities, some of which are half a mile down. However, MOP would have a better chance of actually reaching Tehran's most secret underground plants. So far, Israel has caused extensive damage but largely to surface laboratory facilities., as well as Iran's air defence systems. The greatest achievement of Operation Rising Lion so far has been the killing by Mossad of so many high-powered generals and nuclear scientists. That alone will set back Iran's nuclear programme. The question for Trump is whether he has the appetite for taking on Iran once and for all. At present he has adopted a different line: warning Tehran to grab the diplomatic route before facing annihilation. However, if Ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme leader, refuses to send his diplomats to meet with Witkoff in Oman and focuses only on military retaliation against Israel, Trump might find himself forced to do what Netanyahu has been urging on Washington for a long time: to join with Israel in totally destroying Iran's nuclear programme. If that is what happens, Netanyahu will have achieved his greatest legacy: picking his moment and the right American president to end the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
What will Iran do next?
'They are scared. You can hear it in their voices,' someone wrote to me on Friday from Tehran. And in this case the 'they' is what's left of the Iranian military and intelligence commanders. And perhaps Khamenei, too (strikingly absent from the air waves since a speech on Friday morning). Israel's strikes, yet another show of tactical brilliance from the ever-resourceful Mossad, stunned the Islamic Republic in a brutal display of military and intelligence superiority. Iran is quite simply reeling, and the only question now is how far will Israel go, and to what end? Who, if anyone, will pick up the pieces of a broken Islamic Republic? For now, more than ever, the Islamic Republic faces internal splits, a crisis of confidence and a relentless Israeli military and intelligence machine with all the cards, to use a Trumpism. But as has been the case since October 2023, as Israel struts its hardware over the region, the most important question is, 'How does this all end?' Tactical geniuses are not always strategic masters, as Israel has shown us repeatedly. Whether the US knew about the attack in advance or not (they did) will, I feel, be a footnote in the history of this story, which begun many years ago with Netanyahu banging a large drum on the international stage, and telling everyone one day he would do something about Iran's nuclear ambitions. And now he has done something. Perhaps not as conclusive as he'd have liked, for Iran may still stun the world and announce they have a nuclear weapon. Yet given everything we've seen and heard from Tel Aviv and Washington, it's clear that these strikes are about so much more than yellow cake and centrifuges. This is about crippling the Islamic Republic, bringing it to its knees and destroying its capability to strike back and threaten Israel ever again. This is about regime change, or rather regime destruction. But what can Tehran do? The (relatively) fictional nature of the Islamic Republic's deterrent was exposed throughout 2024, with Tehran's responses to Israeli attacks being calibrated to save face, and avoid war all at the same time, a conjuring trick that Israel quickly rumbled. Iran knows it must do the same here; it needed to strike back to show the world it can't be bullied, but it also knows that its missile defence systems are comparatively weak, that its military senior leadership is in disarray and that its intelligence services are at war internally, playing the ultimate blame game. It could strike at global shipping through the Houthis, sending energy prices through the roof (and saving the Russian economy), and in an act of total desperation, it could also hit Saudi oilfields. But would any of this help its cause? Would any of this save the Islamic Republic? Unlikely. Its best, and riskiest, option would be to speed towards a nuclear weapon. Smart guesses suggest this could take many weeks. And from what we've seen so far, Israel can inflict a lot of damage to Iranian buildings, installation and psyches in a matter of hours. A number of weeks might just be too late. Of course, Trump is saying publicly that he wants Iran to come to the table to talk, but it seems as if the time for talking might well be at an end. But the wildcard in all of this will be Persian nationalism, a force so potent and with such a selective memory that it's entirely possible for large sections of the Iranian population to rally behind a hated regime as they all gather together to resist Israeli bombs. This is why Israel's attacks have been carefully calibrated to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. Having to rely on your enemies to save you from your own people, however, is a damning indictment of an exhausted revolution.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Why the Israel-Iran war could raise your taxes
If Rachel Reeves is to have any chance of making it to her autumn budget without U-turns or raising taxes, the improved economic forecasts of recent months need to come true. Missiles flying between Israel and Iran may destroy that hope. Things had been getting better for the Chancellor. Look at economic forecasts from the aftermath of Trump's 'liberation day', and there was a common theme when it came to Britain. Because of the nature of our economic relationship with America – as a massive exporter in services (we're their call centre) and with more or less balanced trade in goods – we would be shielded against the worst impacts of a trade slowdown. Global GDP growth would suffer, but the effects would not come to Britain. The real boon, if one was being positive, though was what effect these tariffs might have on inflation. While raising prices in the shops for American consumers, the view of the economic world was that for the UK they may in fact be disinflationary. That's because, as the consultancy firm Oxford Economics explained to their clients last month, dampening demand for commodities such as oil and gas would reduce the cost of products consumed in Britain. But all that was before the first Israeli missiles landed in Iran. A barrel of Brent crude now goes for over $70. On Monday it went for $65 – so there has been a 9 per cent in just five days. On Friday morning, it briefly spiked to nearly $80 in what was the sharpest price spike since Russia invaded Ukraine three years ago. Within hours of Reeves delivering what director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies Paul Johnson yesterday called an 'incomprehensible' spending review speech, economists were warning that tax rises in the autumn were becoming likely. Just a day later, a worse-than-expected GDP contraction turned likely into very likely. If oil prices continue climbing as the war escalates, tax rises could become certain. Some 20 billion barrels of oil pass through the Strait of Hormuz, or about 30 per cent of total global trade. So it's easy to see how if Tehran tried to attempt to close the Strait – as Iranian news reports it is considering – or even attacked a few tankers, the oil price would quickly head northwards again. Indeed the FT reported yesterday that the world's largest oil tanker company has stopped accepting new contracts to sail through the Strait. If oil prices do continue to rise – and some say disruption in the Strait could send the price over $100 a barrel – it would be mere days before Brits start paying the cost at the petrol forecourt. But oil supplies are crucial to much more than petrol and diesel and taken together, it's easy to see how the rate of inflation remains sticky or even begins to rise again. Given that the bond markets are keeping the cost of UK debt far higher than the Treasury has been used to – much more because of inflation worries and the after effects of money printing than is understood in Westminster – any signal that prices were rising again are not going to give them faith in Britain as a debtor. If that were to happen and gilt yields remain high, or even climb further, then Reeves could find herself in heaps of trouble. It surprises many City economists just how unequivocal the government has been about sticking to fiscal rules and indeed keeping Labour's manifesto promise not to 'raise taxes on working people' given how hard that is when Reeves only has £9.9 billion of headroom. Before her Spring Statement the chancellor talked of the economic challenges posed by a 'changing world'. Things in the middle east have a habit of spilling over and the world seems to be changing again. Could this once more be the excuse the chancellor has to reach for?
