Bodies of two Israeli-American hostages recovered from Gaza in joint military operation
The bodies of two Israeli-American hostages abducted by Hamas on October 7 were recovered from southern Gaza during a military operation, according to a statement from Israeli military and the Shin Bet security agency.
Judy Weinstein-Haggai, age 70, and Gadi Haggai, age 72, were killed near their home in Kibbutz Nir Oz during the Hamas attack on southern Israel in 2023.
'Together with all the citizens of Israel, my wife and I extend our deepest condolences to the dear families,' Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement.
The prime minister thanked the soldiers and commanders involved in the operation and vowed to return all remaining hostages held in Gaza.
'We will not rest and we will not be silent until all our hostages — both the living and the fallen — are brought home,' he said.
A spokesperson for Kibbutz Nir Oz said the bodies of the two hostages had been returned to Israel overnight and would be laid to rest.
The couple had four children and seven grandchildren.
In a statement the Kibbutz remembered Gadi as 'a sharp-minded man, a gifted wind instrument player since the age of three, deeply connected to the land, a chef and advocate of healthy vegan nutrition and sports.' and Judy as 'a poet, entrepreneur, creative spirit, and devoted advocate for peace and coexistence.'
A statement from the family, provided by the Nir Oz spokesperson expressed gratitude for the return of their missing loved ones.
'We are grateful for the closure we have been granted and for the return of our loved ones for burial — they went out for a walk on that Black Saturday morning and never came back. In this emotional moment, we want to thank the IDF and security forces who carried out this complex rescue operation and have been fighting for us for over a year and a half, and to everyone who supported, struggled, prayed, and fought for us and for all the people of Israel,' it said.
The family also thanked the US administration, the Israeli government, and the FBI for their 'tireless work and ongoing support.'
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Why Trump stopped listening to Netanyahu
In his first term, President Trump was widely seen as a knee-jerk defender of Israel. Now, not so much. Whether and how far Washington splits from Jerusalem — especially on Iran's nuclear-weapons program — has enormous security implications for America, Israel and the wider Middle East. For Trump, personal relationships with foreign leaders equate to the relations between their countries. If he is friendly with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, then U.S.-Israel relations are good. And vice versa. Today, neither relationship is fully broken, but both are increasingly strained. Seeking the strongly pro-Israel evangelical Christian vote in 2016, Trump pledged to withdraw from President Barack Obama's Iran nuclear deal and generally provide Israel strong support. He kept that promise, exiting the agreement in 2018. Moreover, Trump moved America's embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, merged the separate Palestinian liaison office into the bilateral U.S. mission, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and protected Israel at the U.N. Security Council. The transactional basis for these acts was clear. Having close personal relations with Netanyahu, or at least appearing to, buttressed this political imperative. How good those first-term relations really were invites debate, but a continuing rationale was Trump's desire for reelection in 2020 and, later, 2024. Keeping the pro-Israel vote was a top priority in both races. Even though tensions developed between Trump and Netanyahu, few surfaced publicly. In 2024, Trump held the evangelical vote while losing Jewish voters to Harris by a mere 34 points. Even many Harris voters believed Trump would safeguard Israel's interests. But now that electoral constraint is gone, since Trump has essentially admitted he cannot run again. Meanwhile, earlier irritants — such as Netanyahu garnering publicity for his role in the 2020 strike against Iran's Qassem Soleimani, swiftly congratulating Joe Biden for winning in 2020 and his general aptitude for getting more attention than Trump himself — caused personal relations to grow frostier. And all of this was very likely fed by Trump's recurring envy of Obama's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. So in just four months since the inauguration, Trump concluded a separate peace with Yemen's Houthi rebels, ending inconclusive U.S. efforts to clear the Red Sea maritime passage and leaving Israel in the lurch while Houthi missiles targeted Ben Gurion airport. The White House, without Israel, bargained with Hamas for release of Edan Alexander, their last living American hostage. Trump's first major overseas trip was to three Gulf Arab countries, but he skipped Israel, in direct contrast to his first term. While in Saudi Arabia, Trump lifted sanctions imposed on Syria's Assad dictatorship, clearly breaking with Israel, which retains grave doubts about the militant group that ousted Assad and now rules the country. The record is not entirely negative. Trump sanctioned the International Criminal Court for initiating investigations against Netanyahu and his former defense minister. He broadly, but not unreservedly, backs Israel's campaign against Hamas. But the greatest divergence has emerged over the existential threat of Iran's nuclear weapons program. On April 7, during Netanyahu's second post-inaugural visit to the Oval Office, no one seemed more stunned than he when Trump announced that Steve Witkoff would soon be negotiating with Iran. Trump had previously disclosed writing to Ayatollah Khamenei, expressing openness to negotiation but setting a two-month deadline, implying military force should talks fail. If the clock started from the date Iran received the letter, that two-month period has ended. If it began with the first Witkoff-Iran meeting (April 12 in Oman), the drop-dead date is imminent. Trump could extend the deadline, but that would simply extend Israel's peril. Reports that Witkoff has broached an 'interim' or 'framework' deal further exacerbate the dangers of Tehran tapping Washington along. Time is always on the proliferator's side. While discussions languish, Iran can even further disperse, conceal and harden its nuclear weapons assets. Trump acknowledges pressing Israel more than once not to strike Iran's nuclear program. Such public rebukes to a close ally facing mortal peril are themselves extraordinary, proving how hard Trump is trying to save Witkoff's endeavors. Little is known about the talks' substance, but reports show signs of inconsistency and uncertainty — indeed incompetence — over such critical issues as whether Iran would be permitted to enrich uranium to reactor-grade levels, the original sin of the Obama deal. To say Netanyahu is worried is more than an understatement. Trump's behavior is entirely consistent with greater personal distance from Netanyahu and a desire to be the central figure, rather than Netanyahu's Israel taking dispositive action against Tehran's threat. It may also reflect the isolationist voices within his administration, although not among Republicans generally, as 52 senators and 177 representatives have publicly urged Trump not to throw Iran a lifeline. Israel did not ask permission in 1981 before destroying Saddam Hussein's Osirak reactor, or in 2007 before destroying Iran's reactor that was under construction in the Syrian desert. Trump is grievously mistaken if he thinks Netanyahu will 'chicken out,' standing idly by as Iran becomes a nuclear power. Cometh the hour, cometh the man. John Bolton was national security adviser to President Trump from 2018 to 2019 and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006. He held senior State Department posts from 1981 to 1983, from 1989 to 1993 and from 2001 to 2005.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Progressives push anti-Israel activism, are surprised by antisemitic violence that follows
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) is running for cover. After the horrific attack on Jews in Boulder, Colo., the Minnesota representative issued the kind of bland statement meant to deflect blame, posting this on X: 'I'm holding the victims and families in Boulder, Colorado in my heart. Violence against anyone is never acceptable. We must reject hatred and harm in all its forms.' As some noted, it took nearly 24 hours for Omar to issue even that statement, which notably failed to mention that the victims were Jews and the suspect is an Egyptian Muslim who attacked them while shouting 'Free Palestine.' A video has now surfaced in which the accused assailant ranted about his faith, saying 'Allahu Akbar.' After he firebombed a group of Jews, he told investigators he wanted to 'kill all Zionist people.' One of the victims, an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor, asked NBC News, 'What the hell is going on in our country?' It's a question everyone should be asking. Here's part of the answer: It is a very easy hop from college students intimidating Jewish students and chanting about Intifada and a Muslim man trying to murder Jews. It is similarly but a short leap from Omar, who applauded anti-Israel student protesters at Columbia University for being 'brave and patriotic,' voted against an antisemitism resolution in the U.S. House and suggested to aggrieved people acting out of anger that some Jewish students are just 'pro-genocide.' It is also easy to connect student demonstrations with terrorism. For the first time, a protester at Columbia University — an outsider arrested for hate crimes against Jews — has been linked to Hamas. He won't be the last. In recent months we have witnessed not only the hideous attempt to burn Jews alive in Boulder, but also the firebombing of Jewish Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro's home and the cold-blooded murder of two young Jewish people at the Jewish Capital Museum in Washington. All three suspects expressed anti-Israel sentiments, with the alleged perpetrator of the latter killings shouting 'free, free Palestine' after he shot the victims 21 times. The Anti-Defamation League reports that 2024 saw a record number of antisemitic attacks, up 344 percent over the past five years. This is intolerable. Radicalized students at some of our top schools are part of the problem. Recently, MIT's graduation was marred by a student speaker, Megha Vemuri, who donned the politically symbolic keffiyeh and told the commencement audience, 'We are watching Israel try to wipe out Palestine off the face of the earth, and it is a shame that MIT is a part of it.' She also accused MIT of complicity 'in the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people.' Writing in the Times of Israel, one alum panned the speech as a 'trite, TikTok-depth graduation speech on a tragic issue of devastating complexity'; she condemned the administration for not informing the audience of myriad programs funded by MIT that improves the lives and futures of Palestinians. MIT's president, Sally Kornbluth, did not defend the university or refute Vemuri's incendiary language; instead, she stepped to the podium and said, 'At MIT, we believe in freedom of expression. But today is about the graduates.' Not, apparently, about the Jewish graduates. A Jew graduating with a Ph.D in cryptography posted on X: 'I finally got my PhD from @MIT, with my 5-year-old twins, my 2-year-old and my parents (children of Holocaust survivors) traveling halfway around the world just to be there. Instead, MIT's student commencement speaker decided it was appropriate to use the moment for hate-filled rhetoric against Israelis and Jews … too many in the crowd erupted with cheers and anger. My kids might not have understood every word, but they felt the fear and hostility. … How could @MIT let this happen? How, indeed. It is not only schools that are allowing anti-Jewish and anti-Israel hatred to spiral out of control; because the fever is being staunchly condemned by the Trump White House, the media has gone mushy. After the Boulder incident, USA Today ran a sob-sister piece about the offspring of the Egyptian man who tried to burn Jews alive with the headline: 'Boulder suspect's daughter dreamed of studying medicine. Now she faces deportation.' After receiving massive blowback, USA Today quietly revised the offensive piece. Increasingly, it is progressives like Omar who are responsible for surging antisemitism. Apologists claim that supporting Palestine and opposing Israel do not constitute antisemitism. Perhaps they would not in in isolation, but the protesters have taken pains to muddy the waters as much as possible. As the New York Times recently noted, 'the sprawling protest movement against the war in Gaza has scrambled efforts to distinguish opposition to the actions of the Israeli government, or even to the state of Israel itself, from hostility to Jews. Critics of the protesters have argued that slogans like 'globalize the Intifada' are thinly veiled calls for violence in any Jewish space.' A rabbi in Boulder was quoted by the Times writing, 'Jews in America have mostly felt the threats of antisemitism from the far right in the form of White Supremacy, yet now many of us have experienced hatred, bigotry and intolerance from progressives, those who many of us have considered friends and allies.' In City Journal, Charles Fain Lehman writes, 'The American radical anti-Israel movement has built the intellectual scaffolding for—and in many cases all but invited—the violence now playing out in places like Boulder. When you call for 'Intifada,' you cannot feign surprise when someone takes that call literally. Whatever your legal right to speak, that is the outcome you invoked.' Lehman is correct: The Intifada is here and must be confronted. Our government must protect free speech criticizing Israel or supporting Palestine, but it must also deploy all resources to punish acts of violence — including on college campuses — before more people get hurt. If it were blacks or Asians under attack, we would not have to defend efforts to stave off hate crimes. Jews should be afforded the same protections. Liz Peek is a former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim and Company. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Was the Boulder attack terrorism or a hate crime? 2 experts unpack the complexities
Twelve people in Boulder, Colorado, were injured by a man wielding a makeshift flamethrower and Molotov cocktails on June 1, 2025. Those burned in the attack were taking part in a peaceful, silent walk on Pearl Street, a pedestrian mall, with the aim of raising awareness about Israeli hostages held by Hamas in Gaza. The suspect, Mohamed Sabry Soliman, 45, yelled, 'Free Palestine,' according to local news reports. Soliman is an Egyptian immigrant who was living in the U.S. illegally after his tourist visa and work authorization both expired. On June 3, Soliman's family, who lived with him in Colorado Springs, were detained by federal immigration authorities. Soliman's wife and five children were placed in expedited removal proceedings. The FBI and local authorities initially said they were investigating a 'targeted terror attack'. But Soliman was later charged with hate crimes in federal court. He also faces attempted murder and other charges in state court. We study terrorism and hate crimes. Whether an attack like the one in Boulder is considered an act of terrorism or a hate crime changes the way a suspect is charged and sentenced. Let's look at how these two terms differ. Hate crimes are crimes motivated by bias on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity. In some states, gender, age and gender identity are also included. Hate crime laws have been passed by 47 states and the federal government since the 1980s, when activists first began to press state legislatures to recognize the role of bias in violence against minority groups. Today, only Arkansas, South Carolina and Wyoming do not have hate crime laws. Colorado's 2024 statute prohibits bias-motivated attacks based on a wide variety of categories, from ancestry to gender identity. In order to be charged as a hate crime, attacks – whether vandalism, assault or killings – must be directed at individuals because of the prohibited biases. Hate crimes, in other words, punish motive; the prosecutor must convince the judge or jury that the victim was targeted because of their race, religion, sexual orientation or other protected characteristic. If the defendant is found to have acted with bias motivation, hate crimes often add an additional penalty to the underlying charge. Charging people with a hate crime, then, presents additional layers of complexity to what may otherwise be a straightforward case for prosecutors. Bias motivation can be hard to prove, and prosecutors can be reluctant to take cases that they may not win in court. Terrorism is a violent tactic – a strategy used to achieve a specific end. This strategy is often used in asymmetric power struggles when a weaker person, or group, is fighting against a powerful nation-state. The violence is aimed at creating fear in the targeted population. Terrorists often justify their bloody acts on the basis of perceived social, economic and political unfairness. Or they take inspiration from religious beliefs or spiritual principles. Many forms of terrorism were inspired by struggle between races, the rich and poor, or political outcasts and elites. How different terrorist groups act is informed by what they are trying to achieve. Some adopt a reactionary perspective aimed at stopping or resisting social, economic and political changes. Others adopt a revolutionary doctrine and want to provoke change. In the United States, terrorism attacks were in sharp decline from 1970 to 2011, decreasing from approximately 475 incidents a year to fewer than 20. The U.S. government began to take more note of domestic terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. And the number of domestic terrorism incidents began to rise after 2011, with notable increases in the mid-to-late 2010s and early 2020s. Data compiled by the Center for Strategic and International Studies shows right-wing terrorist attacks and plots grew substantially during the past decade, with right-wing extremists being responsible for the majority of attacks and plots each year since 2011, except for 2013. There were 44 incidents in 2019 alone. The Department of Homeland Security's 2025 Homeland Threat Assessment indicates that the terrorism threat environment in the United States remains high, driven largely by domestic violent extremists motivated by a mix of racial, religious and anti-government grievances. Terrorism is not a successful tactic. American University professor Audrey Cronin studied 457 terrorist groups worldwide going back to 1968. The groups lasted an average of eight years before they lost support or were dismantled. No terrorist organizations that she studied were able to conquer a state, and 94% were unable to achieve even one of their strategic goals. Portions of this article originally appeared in articles published on March 19, 2021, and May 23, 2017. Read more of our stories about Colorado. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Frederic Lemieux, Georgetown University and Jeannine Bell, Loyola University Chicago Read more: Reducing American antisemitism requires more than condemning opposition to Israel and targeting elite universities For many American Jews protesting for Palestinians, activism is a journey rooted in their Jewish values When is criticism of Israel antisemitic? A scholar of modern Jewish history explains The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
