‘Few days left to live': Hamas releases chilling video of ‘living skeleton' hostage Evyatar David
In the nearly five-minute minute video released on Friday, Mr David is seen in a tunnel with a ceiling roughly as high as he is tall, crossing off dates on a calendar and digging a grave.
'I haven't eaten for a few days in a row,' Mr David says in the footage.
In the middle of the video, the person behind the camera hands him a can of beans.
'This can is for two days,' Mr David says. 'This whole can is for two days so that I don't die.
'This is the grave I think I'm going to be buried in. Time is running out.'
The David family, which allowed the release of the video, said in a statement sent to the Hostages Families Forum Headquarters, 'We are forced to witness our beloved son and brother, Evyatar David, deliberately and cynically starved in Hamas's tunnels in Gaza — a living skeleton, buried alive.
'The deliberate starvation of our son as part of a propaganda campaign is one of the most horrifying acts the world has seen.'
The appalling video sparked outrage in Israel and across the globe.
'Hamas terrorists deliberately starve our hostages, documenting them in a cynical, humiliating, and malicious manner,' said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Naftali Fürst, a Holocaust survivor, said she watched the images of the hostages with a 'heavy heart', taking her back decades.
'I survived Auschwitz and Buchenwald. I know hunger up close. In the camps, we were given rations of bread and watery soup,' she said. 'We were so hungry, we would even eat grass if we could find it.
'I remember the humiliation — the complete stripping of human dignity. I know the fear, the terror.'
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill pointed to Hamas' monstrous treatment of Mr David as a reminder of the terrorist group's barbarity and role in prolonging the bloody conflict in Gaza.
'Iran-backed Hamas terrorists have held innocent people hostage, starving them for 666 days,' Florida Republican Senator Rick Scott said of the horrifying footage.
'Just look at these photos — it's gut-wrenching. Every day that goes by is a risk to their lives. We cannot stop until every hostage is home and Hamas is destroyed.'
Pennsylvania Democratic Senator John Fetterman recounted how he met with Mr David's family and demanded Hamas release the hostages.
'I cannot even begin to imagine the horror of this video for them. I continue to stand with these families and every last hostage. Hamas: send these poor souls home, disarm, and end this hell on earth in Gaza,' Mr Fetterman said in response to the chilling video.
Hudson Valley, New York Republican Representative Mike Lawler called the imagery 'vile' and underscored Hamas' role in fuelling the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip.
'This is vile. Where are all those demanding Israel end this war now?' Mr Lawler said. 'Where are all those decrying the humanitarian crisis now?
'The only entity for the devastation that has been inflicted upon innocent Israelis and Palestinians is Hamas. Period. Full stop.'
Bronx Democratic Representative Ritchie Torres said, 'The world's silence about the deliberate starvation of Israelis and Jews — at the hands of Hamas and Islamic Jihad — is as deafening as its hypocrisy.'
'A humanitarianism that devalues Jewish life is no humanitarianism at all, for it has been hollowed out by antisemitism,' Mr Torres added.
French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot called the images 'vile' and 'unbearable'.
'The hostage's hell must end,' he wrote on X on Saturday.
Israel has come under heightened pressure on the world stage over the conditions in Gaza, with countries such as Canada, the UK and France moving to recognise a Palestinian state as soon as next month.
But top US officials have repeatedly sought to drill home to allies that Hamas is the one preventing peace.
'The fastest way to end the Humanitarian Crises in Gaza is for Hamas to SURRENDER AND RELEASE THE HOSTAGES!!!' President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social earlier this week.
Hamas is believed to still have 20 living hostages in captivity and 30 who are dead. Despite that, Israel has moved to allow more humanitarian aid to the war-torn enclave, including from airdrops, tactical pauses in key areas, and the opening of new routes for aid to flow through.
The cruel hostage video marks the second one released by the terror group this week.
On Thursday, chilling footage showed Israeli hostage Rom Braslavski ghostly and frail as he cried during the six-minute video.
Both were kidnapped at the Nova music festival during the October 7 terror attack and are among the remaining 20 hostages believed to still be alive.
'They are on the absolute brink of death,' brother Ilay David said Saturday, speaking in English before a crowd of thousands in Tel Aviv gathered for their weekly demonstrations to call for the release of all hostages and an end to the war.
Mr David called on President Trump to secure the release of the hostages 'by any means necessary'.
'To remain silent now is to be complicit in their slow agonising death,' he said.
US special envoy Steve Witkoff, meanwhile, told Israeli hostages' families in a meeting in Tel Aviv earlier Saturday, that he had no news of progress in talks with Hamas, according to Hebrew media.
'I hear your frustration. But the situation is complicated. There are many reasons that I cannot detail,' he said.
Mr Witkoff added that an end to the war was 'very close', according to a statement by the Hostages Families Forum Headquarters.
'We have a plan to … bring everyone home.'
The Trump administration envoy said the US was after a deal that would release all hostages from the Palestinian enclave and end the war.
'No piecemeal deals,' he added. 'That doesn't work. We've tried everything.'
Hamas refuted claims by Mr Witkoff it was ready to lay down arms, vowing not to disarm 'as long as the occupation exists' and until there is a fully sovereign Palestinian state.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Netanyahu to consider 'next steps' in Gaza war amid domestic pressure
Israel's prime minister will convene a meeting of his security cabinet later this week to decide the Israeli military's next steps in Gaza. Benjamin Netanyahu is under increasing pressure domestically, after 22 months of war have failed to deliver on his two key objectives: returning the remaining Israeli hostages and destroying Hamas. There are 50 Israelis still held captive in Gaza, but only 20 are believed to still be alive. The criticism of the prime minister and his government comes amid growing international condemnation about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where Palestinian health authorities said another five people died of starvation and 24 were killed trying to seek aid. Israel continues to deny starvation has taken hold in Gaza, despite the overwhelming body of evidence and opinion stating the enclave is in the throes of what the UN has called the "worst case scenario of famine". "We must continue to stand together and fight together to achieve all our war objectives: the defeat of the enemy, the release of our hostages, and the assurance that Gaza will no longer pose a threat to Israel," Mr Netanyahu told ministers during a government meeting on Monday. "Later this week, I will convene the cabinet to instruct the Israel Defense Forces on how to achieve these three objectives — all of them, without exception." Israeli media is reporting that the military's top brass have issued warnings to the government that the current mission, called 'Operation Gideon's Chariots", has run its course. There are concerns within the IDF that troops have seized as much ground in Gaza as possible, without risking the lives of the remaining hostages. There is further speculation the new directive to the military may be to ratchet up Israel's aerial bombardment of the strip, given ceasefire and hostage negotiations between Israel and Hamas have been locked in a stalemate for months. More than 60,000 Palestinians have been killed during the war, according to figures from Gaza's health ministry. Israel disputes those figures but does not provide data of its own to refute them, and the United Nations backs the Palestinian data as the best reflection of the scale of loss in the strip. Protesters took to the streets outside the prime minister's offices in Jerusalem to voice their anger at the continuation of the war. Over the weekend, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) released videos of two of the remaining hostages, Rom Braslavski and Evyatar David. Their emaciated appearances have fuelled fury across Israel, with many Israelis taking aim at the government for refusing to agree to a ceasefire and hostage deal with Hamas which would end the war and bring the captives home. Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa'ar has instead blamed the international media and world leaders for failing to give the plight of hostages enough attention. "Hamas and Islamic Jihad are using the starvation and torture of hostages as part of a deliberate and well-planned sadistic propaganda campaign," he said in Jerusalem. "These organisations also planned the starvation campaign of lies together." Scenes of utter chaos have continued across Gaza, as starving Palestinians jostled for whatever food they could secure. In central Gaza, hundreds of Palestinians sprinted towards pallets of aid dropped by Arab and European planes flying over Gaza. "It is dangerous, full of death, and it's all humiliation," Deir al-Baah resident Assad al-Qaraan told the news agency Reuters. "Just 30 per cent of people are able to receive aid and the rest do not receive anything. "What follows is infighting and stabbing — thank them for bringing aid, but this aid is full of danger and death, it all leads to death." Some witnesses said a pallet landed on a tent in Zawaida. "We were waiting for the airdrop, the aid landed on the tent and person inside looked to be killed, God knows," Yusuf Fleifel said. "The man went to the hospital, God knows if he was a martyr or injured." Palestinian health authorities said 94 people had been killed over a 24-hour period from Sunday into Monday in Gaza, and 24 of them were seeking aid. There were reports from local medics of more shootings near distribution facilities run by the US and Israeli backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). Israel's military denied shooting at one of the sites in comments to Reuters, and GHF said "distributions at all sites ran smoothly today, helping protect all civilians present". Benjamin Netanyahu had demanded the Red Cross be allowed to deliver aid and medical support to Israeli hostages, suggesting they were starving while their captors were well fed. Hamas responded saying it would be prepared to facilitate such requests, but only if all humanitarian corridors into Gaza were reopened — arguing the hostages were experiencing the same conditions as the broader Palestinian population. The Israeli agency responsible for coordinating aid deliveries into Gaza, COGAT, said 160 trucks entered the strip on Sunday, while a further 200 loads were picked up and distributed inside Gaza by the UN and other humanitarian agencies. Around 136 pallets of aid were also dropped on Sunday by countries including Jordan, the UAE, Egypt, Germany, France and Belgium. But humanitarian agencies insist what is getting into the strip is a drop in the ocean compared to what's needed to tackle starvation, after months of aid restrictions. ABC/wires
AU Financial Review
an hour ago
- AU Financial Review
Netanyahu leaning toward seizing Gaza, Israeli TV says
Jerusalem | Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is leaning toward expanding the offensive in Gaza and seizing the entire enclave, Israel's Channel 12 cited an official from his office as saying on Monday (Tuesday AEST). Netanyahu will be convening his cabinet on Tuesday to make a decision on the matter, Israeli media reported, following the collapse of indirect ceasefire talks with Hamas.
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
Why police couldn't stop the Harbour Bridge protest
Sam Hawley: It was a protest the New South Wales government and police tried to stop but couldn't. In the end, more than 100,000 protesters were permitted to walk across the Sydney Harbour Bridge, demanding an end to the war in Gaza. But should we be concerned that organisers had to fight for the right to hold the rally in the first place? Today, Associate Professor in Law at the University of South Australia, Sarah Moulds, on why it's becoming harder to protest. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. News report: It was the protest that brought Sydney to a standstill. Thousands marching across the Harbour Bridge. Despite the rain that come from all over the city and beyond. Protester: The starving children of Gaza cannot wait another day. End the violence. Protester: There's too many deaths of young children, too much starvation. Protester: It's a sign of the turning tide of the of the opinion in this country. And it's a sign that people aren't going to put up with it anymore. Sam Hawley: Sarah, when a pro-Palestinian group first proposed this march across the Harbour Bridge in Sydney about a week before it was to take place, the government and police were not happy, were they? Sarah Moulds: No, they were looking for a way to stop the protest or to see whether the protest could happen in a different place. Sam Hawley: Yeah. So the New South Wales Police Acting Deputy Commissioner, Peter McKenna, he was saying that he was concerned about public safety and the disruption to motorists. Assistant Commissioner Peter McKenna, NSW Police: We understand there is some angst at the moment about what's happening overseas. We understand and are sympathetic to that. But the New South Wales Police decision around this has to be first and foremost about public and police safety. We will not be facilitating that protest. Sam Hawley: Chris Minns, the New South Wales Premier, he opposed the protest, saying he could not allow Sydney to descend into chaos. Chris Minns, NSW Premier: To close down the Harbour Bridge, which has happened maybe two or three times in a decade, is a logistical and communications Everest. It's incredibly difficult to do. And I understand that some people say, look, it's easy to shut down the bridge. It's not easy. Sam Hawley: Were they reasonable arguments at that time? Sarah Moulds: I think they were reasonable arguments. But one of the things that's important to hold in mind is this concept that we have a common law right to communicate about political matters in Australia that comes from our constitution. And the concept of the right of peaceful assembly is something we've signed up to at the international level. So while I think the arguments around safety, inconvenience and disruption are really powerful, particularly with something of this scale in this place, on the other side of the ledger, if you like, are these important principles that Australians also consider to be fundamental in our democracy? Sam Hawley: All right. Well, around this time, the protesters were predicting that around 50,000 people would turn up. So that's about a week before it actually happened. And the matter then went before the New South Wales Supreme Court and Judge Belinda Rigg, who would make the ultimate decision about whether or not this protest could happen on the Harbour Bridge. And she did that on Saturday morning. What did she say? Sarah Moulds: In the reasons that were shared from the justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court, it's clear that that common law concept of peaceful assembly was an important consideration. So was the principle that just because something might be inconvenient or disruptive might not be enough to say it should be prohibited under the law. And also there was information to suggest that people were going to do this anyway. And so that was something that needed to be considered alongside the safety information that the police were putting before the court. Sam Hawley: And Justice Rigg, she noted that the march at this location on the Harbour Bridge was motivated by the belief that the horror and urgency of the situation in Gaza demands an urgent and extraordinary response from the people of the world. She also noted that it is in the nature of peaceful protests to cause disruption to others. Sarah Moulds: That's right. That was clear from the ruling that that concept of inconvenience and disruption is inherently connected to the idea of protest and communicating on a matter of political importance to the people of Australia. Sam Hawley: All right. So the judgment meant, of course, that the protest could go ahead and that the protesters would have immunity from being charged with what offences? Sarah Moulds: Yes. So the immunity is quite limited. So the ruling meant that somebody was not going to be charged with an offence relating to unlawful assembly, of obstructing a person, vehicle or public place. But it was conditional on the fact that the protesters stayed within the boundaries of the assembly that was described in this form one that was before the court. So the protest organisers had to put all that information together, share that with the police and the court. And if the communities involved stayed within the scope of that plan, they would be immune from those minor offences that I just described. However, it would not extend to somebody being prosecuted or charged with a violent offence. And the police retain powers to make orders with respect to individuals and ask them to do things or ask them to change what they're doing. And a failure to comply with those kind of orders made by police could also potentially result in liability. So important immunity, but also limited. Sam Hawley: Well, Sarah, as we said before, initially, the protest organisers thought that it attracted around 50,000 people. In the end, more than 100,000 people showed up despite the terrible weather. It was pouring with rain. That's huge, isn't it? Just put that into perspective. Have we seen such a large protest like this before? Sarah Moulds: I'm sure we have back in history, but in recent years, particularly in the years since these legal processes for handling process have been involved in this way. This is a very, very significant number of people. And I think that speaks to the significance of the issue that people were protesting about on the bridge, as well as the challenge faced by police and other authorities in facilitating this type of event to happen safely. So, yeah, throughout history, we've had really big protests before in Australia. But definitely in recent years, the numbers of this one are really significant. Sam Hawley: The acting assistant commissioner, Adam Johnson, he described the situation on the bridge as intense and one of the most perilous he's ever been involved in. Acting Assistant Commissioner Adam Johnson, NSW Police: I can honestly say in my 35 years of policing, that was a perilous situation. I've never seen a more perilous situation. I was honestly worried that we were going to have a a major incident with a potential loss of life. Sam Hawley: But it was peaceful, wasn't it? Sarah Moulds: I think one thing to keep in mind on the legal side of it is that the reason we have this process of being able to put forward an application detailing a public assembly and then have the opportunity for the police to respond and ultimately the courts is to try and make sure that this can happen safely, that we get the right balance between freedom of speech and association and our right to communicate on political matters and safety. And so I think that it is really important to continue to encourage organisers of community events and public assemblies to put that information in the application and give the authorities time to respond. It was clear from the ruling in this case that this was important to get right. If there was a prohibition, there was a risk that people would protest anyway and then you would lose that opportunity to create safety or have control over what might happen in and around the protest. With the oversight of the court, you can do this in a safe way. And it appears that it did have a safe result in this particular case, which is pretty extraordinary. Not many places around the world could have a protest of 90,000 people and result in safety for everybody. So that's something pretty significant as well. Sam Hawley: So, Sarah, we know protesting is a democratic right, but as you've mentioned, it has become harder to protest in Australia. There are more barriers now than ever before, right? Sarah Moulds: Yeah, that's correct. So we've made a commitment at the international level to protect everybody's right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. But what we don't have is anything clear in our constitution or in any other piece of legislation saying we have a right to protest in Australia. Instead, we have this implied constitutional freedom to communicate on political matters in our representative democracy. But what you definitely can have and what we see in a number of states in Australia are laws that prohibit any disruptive action on the streets, any disruptive action on the roads or around businesses or workplaces. So in South Australia, for example, we've got offences for obstructing public place. In Queensland and New South Wales, they've got offences for attaching yourself to roads or major thoroughfares. In Tasmania, we had laws around logging areas, prohibiting people from protesting there. One of the things that's obvious is that these laws are different in different places, and it's quite complex and confusing for people to know what they are. And that's why we see people having to get legal advice and barristers to help them work this out. So if we were able to get together and streamline these processes across Australia so it was clear about how important it is to value peaceful assembly, but also how important it is to put people on notice about what things are going to look like so we can do this safely. I think that would be great. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, police have said they can't allow a protest like this to happen again. Assistant Commissioner Peter McKenna, NSW Police: So this operation, from our point of view, was a success in that no one was hurt. No people were hurt. No police were hurt. But gee whiz, I wouldn't like to try and do this every Sunday at that short notice. There's a reason we need time to plan these things out. And I think going forward into the future, that has to be taken into consideration. Sam Hawley: And the Premier, Chris Minns, says the government will look at whether that Supreme Court judgment actually sets a precedent. Chris Minns, NSW Premier: I have to examine all of this. I'm not ruling anything out. And I think most reasonable people would expect that, yes, you do have from time to time massive demonstrations, even if it's on the bridge. But knocking it out every week is just it's not something that we can consider forever. Sarah Moulds: Well, I think that at the moment, the summary offences process that was followed in this case, it gives discretion for police commissioners to make decisions, and it gives discretion for the courts to make decisions. If the New South Wales Parliament attempted to pass a different law about protest, they've done this in other areas or use different powers, then ultimately it might go to the High Court to see whether the Parliament has unduly infringed that constitutional freedom. So I think there are tweaks that the Parliament could make to the process of applying for authorisation for protests. But they'd have to be careful because there's a tipping point where the High Court would say you are now prohibiting that implied freedom of political communication. And that's such an important concept of a representative democracy that we can communicate about things that we feel passionately about as voters and citizens in the country. Sam Hawley: The point, of course, of a protest, Sarah, is to bring about change. Do you think this will do that in any way, given the magnitude of it? Sarah Moulds: Well, I think Australia's ability to influence what's happening on the ground in the Middle East is limited. However, we have a powerful voice in international forums and in forums with our allies. And so I think that action like this empowers and emboldens our political leaders to do things like look to international forums, international law, humanitarian law, and say Australian people support those concepts of dignity and human rights and that they can then go and express that position on the world stage. So I think the protesters would feel that they've done something historic in organising this event, sent a message across the world about what the people of Australia think, supported the elected representatives who are articulating their perspective on the world stage. And I think we should also be proud of our police and authorities, as I said, that have been able to organise a protest like this is probably an excellent sign of a healthy democracy that we can facilitate this kind of democratic expression in this way. Sam Hawley: Sarah Moulds is an associate professor in law at the University of South Australia. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead and Cinnamon Nippard. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.
