A newly revealed transcript of a 1989 questioning of Yahya Sinwar points to the Hamas leader's decades-long history of violence.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

That year, Sinwar was arrested by the Shin Bet security agency in Khan Yunis for the murder of collaborators with Israel.

Sinwar, who was in charge of gathering intelligence about collaborators at the time, surprised investigators when he gave them a tour around Gaza revealing the locations where he had buried the bodies of the collaborators he had murdered.

"I'm ready to tell you everything, from the beginning, things I've done and never talked about," a transcript of the interrogation, which is 10 pages long and is kept in the archives of the Supreme Court, said.

Around three years earlier, in 1986, Sinwar had partnered with the then-head of Hamas Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Yassin had just been released from prison in Israel, one of 1,151 prisoners released as part of the Jibril Agreement in return for which three Israeli soldiers who had been taken hostage during the 1982 Lebanon War were released.

In coordination with Yassin, Sinwar founded a sub-group whose task was to identify collaborators with Israel.

"When Sheikh Yassin was released from prison in the exchange deal, I would go to visit him," Sinwar said. "We sat and talked among ourselves about all kinds of things, and among other things, we also talked about the situation in the Gaza Strip, the situation of Islam and the collaborators with Israel. We decided to employ people who would gather information on the collaborators and on everyone who is against the religion and Islam. I knew it was dangerous, so I recruited Rawhi Jamal who could be trusted. He agreed.

"I updated Sheikh Yassin and we started working. Each was responsible for a different area, I received the southern area of the Gaza Strip. We would pass the information between us in mailboxes in mosques."

Sinwar told investigators that he later recruited more operatives, mainly from the universities of Gaza, and that the assassinations were approved by Yassin.

Throughout the hours-long questioning, Sinwar provided gruesome details of the murders of collaborators, all of which he committed himself – either by shooting or suffocating the suspect with his own hands.

In one instance, Sinwar surveilled a Gazan named Rasmi Salim after receiving information that he was an apostate and collaborated with Israel.

"We were driving a white Peugeot, stopped next to Rasmi, caught him, and pushed him in the car," Sinwar described with eerie casualness. "We interrogated Rasmi, and he admitted that he was in contact with the Israeli intelligence, with a man named Abu Rami. He also admitted that he used to bring girls to his shop and mess with them.

"We took him to the cemetery in Khan Yunis, without telling him what we were going to do. I tied his eyes with a rag so he couldn't see, put him in a large grave I saw, and suffocated him with a rag I had. After strangling him, I wrapped him in a white cloth and closed the grave. I understood from Rasmi that he realized that he deserved to die."

Sinwar also told the investigators that Hamas later provided him with a weapon, but he preferred to kill the suspects with his hands.

Thus, for instance, he described how, following similar intel, the group killed a Gazan named Adnan Safur, whom Sinwar threatened with a gun and kidnapped.

Following a violent interrogation ("We beat him"), Safur admitted that he had collaborated with Israel, which immediately sealed his faith. "I suffocated him with a keffiyeh, we dug in the place and Rawhi and I buried him there," Sinwar said.

Details of two more murders were provided.

"We saw Fathi Issa walking alone in the Bureij refugee camp," Sinwar told investigators. "We got out of the vehicle, threatened him with a gun, and shoved him in the car. From there we drove to an orchard and I interrogated Fathi.

"I grabbed his throat with one hand and started choking him, with the other hand I punched him in the stomach and suddenly he had a heart attack and died. We drove to the neighborhood of Sheikh Radwan, and using a hoe I had in the car we dug a hole. When we finished, we returned to the orchard to take the body and drove to the hole to bury him."

Sinwar and his men's next target was Hussein al-Sir from Khan Yunis, a wealthy man who used to show off his Mercedes car.

"When we found him inside his vehicle, I took out the gun and threatened him. I put the gun to his neck, I told him 'get in my car', and when he got out of his car he started to resist.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

"I pressed the gun to his neck so that he would get in the car, but then a bullet came out and hit him because I left the hatch open. We quickly put him in the car and drove away. We arrived behind a factory, and there we buried the body. After that, we washed the car of the blood and all the marks and went home. After some time, I think the next day, we saw the [Israeli] military there and knew that they had found Hussein's body."

For these and other murders, Sinwar was convicted and sentenced to five life sentences which he was supposed to serve until his death, but in October 2011 he was released from prison – having only served 22 years – as part of the Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange.

While in prison, Sinwar learned Hebrew, and he gained power and popularity within Hamas and became its Gaza leader in February 2017, after defeating Ismail Haniyeh in internal elections.

The post 'I strangled them with my own hands': Chilling transcript of 1989 questioning of Yahya Sinwar revealed appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Jerusalem Magistrate's Court has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by Tareq Abbas, the son of the Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, against Middle East expert Dr. Reuven Berko following a television interview. Judge Orna Sandler-Eitan ordered Abbas's son to pay Dr. Berko NIS 30,000 and determined that the interview did not take place on Israeli Channel 14 as claimed in the lawsuit. Additionally, some of Berko's alleged quotes were not made by him, but by the Gazan channel where the interview was actually broadcasted from.

In 2019, Abbas filed a defamation lawsuit against Dr. Reuven Berko following a television interview in which Berko discussed the Abbas family's wealth, noting that they arrived in Israel "destitute." He also stated that without security coordination with Israel, their presence in the Palestinian Authority territory would be short-lived. According to Abbas, Dr. Berko portrayed him as a "greedy, corrupt person... willing to sacrifice everything for his pocket and wants" - claims the lawsuit, adding that the interview was conducted on Channel 14.

Berko's lawyers, Abraham Moshe Segal and Avraham Gaz from the "Shurat HaDin" organization led by attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, argued that the interview did not broadcast on Israeli television and thus "was not published in a widely viewed medium." Court-ordered checks by representatives of Channels 12, 13, and 14 revealed that the interview did not broadcast on these channels, but rather on a Gazan channel. The judge watched the interview with the assistance of the court's Arabic-language interpreter. "During the hearing, it became clear to the court and the defendant, for the first time, that the publication was edited and contained no less than four 'jumps,'" according to the judge.

The judge wrote that the main issue revealed by watching the interview was that a central part of Berko's alleged quotes were not said by him. "Against the defendant's image, a red caption appeared at the bottom of the screen stating: 'Zionist researcher: Abbas's stay depends on security coordination with Israel, and his sons became millionaires.' The connection between these two parts of the sentence, suggesting that the plaintiff is corrupt, was created by the editor of the Gazan news channel. Furthermore, the mentioned statement was not made by the defendant," the judge noted.

The judge added that "a review of the publication, as translated by the court's interpreter, shows that the defendant referred to the plaintiff family's wealth and also mentioned that they were previously destitute. The defendant also said that 'without security coordination, their stay in the Palestinian Authority is short-lived.' None of these statements constitutes defamation." The judge further stated that "the Gazan news channel published the statements for its own reasons and that this 'interpretation' - not the defendant's words - defamed the plaintiff." The judge dismissed the lawsuit and ordered Abbas to pay Berko NIS 30,000 in legal expenses.

Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, President of the "Shurat HaDin" organization, stated, "This was an absurd and unfounded lawsuit intended to intimidate free speech in Israel from the very begining. The lawsuit should have been dismissed outright, but I welcome the court's ruling that brought justice to light."

The post Mahmoud Abbas's son to pay tens of thousands of shekels to Israeli middle east expert appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Israel's attorney general informed the Communications Ministry that the seizure of equipment from the Associated Press news agency earlier this week was carried out without proper authority and based on a flawed interpretation of the recently passed law outlawing Al-Jazeera, a senior official briefed on the matter told Israel Hayom.

The government's legal counsel criticized the confiscation of AP's equipment, faulting not only Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, who made the decision but also the staff at the ministry who signed off on the move. She instructed the ministry that any future action under the Al-Jazeera law must receive her prior approval.

On Tuesday, Minister Karhi ordered communications inspectors to seize broadcast equipment belonging to the AP, one of the world's largest news organizations. The equipment included cameras that had provided live, blurred footage from a distance of an area in the Gaza Strip where Israeli military forces were also visible.

Like many news outlets worldwide, the Al-Jazeera channel used this AP footage livestreamed from the Gaza border. Minister Karhi believed the live coverage endangered Israeli troops by exposing their locations and that he had the authority under the Al-Jazeera law to confiscate the equipment. His view received approval from all the professional staff at the Communications Ministry before the operation was carried out.

The AP reported that Israel was violating its press freedoms by seizing its equipment, prompting widespread international criticism. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu then instructed Mr. Karhi to return the equipment to the AP.

After Mr. Karhi backed down, the attorney general opened an inquiry and subsequently criticized the seizure of AP's gear. According to the legal advisor, the Al-Jazeera law's provision allowing "seizure of equipment used to supply content for the foreign channel" does not grant authority to confiscate equipment from an independent news agency distributing content to all media outlets, even if Al-Jazeera uses that agency's products like other outlets do.

The advisor said the law only permits the seizing of equipment directly belonging to Al-Jazeera itself. If there is evidence, Al-Jazeera is responsible for or connected to the establishment of another media outlet, circumventing the law.

Minister Karhi had claimed AP's broadcasting exposed and endangered Israeli forces. However, the attorney general found the minister's claim of endangerment lacked any factual basis. Neither the minister nor the professional ranks at the Communications Ministry sought an opinion from the Defense Ministry, the military, or other security agencies on whether the broadcast did indeed expose or jeopardize forces.

In a tweet and radio interview, the minister acknowledged that a legal opinion on whether the broadcast was exposing and endangering troops was only requested retroactively after AP's equipment had already been seized. With no substantiation for the claimed risk to forces, the equipment was returned to the agency.

The post Israeli minister overstepped legal authority by seizing AP equipment appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Following a petition to the High Court filed by a fighter in the undercover unit, the Israel Police has conceded that there was no reason to bar women from joining its Border Guard West Bank undercover unit.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Up until now, women could join other undercover units in the organization, but under the revised position, prospective female recruits would be allowed to join if they meet the relevant criteria for other applicants and only if there is more than one woman who passes the threshold, "in view of the characteristics of service in these units, including a prolonged stay in hostile territory.

T' has been serving for several years as a fighter in the Border Police's undercover unit in the south – the Sinai undercover unit. She also passed all the required screenings for the role. At one point, T' requested to move to the undercover unit in the Judea and Samaria area. However, she was allegedly told that the unit was closed to women even if they had the necessary skillset.

Through her attorneys, the fighter filed a petition to the High Court, saying, "The petitioner was informed that the Border Police commander wants women to serve in the West Bank undercover unit, but at this stage recruitment to the unit is not allowed due to the opposition of a small part of the fighters to the addition of women."

In the meantime, T' moved to a fighter position in the Ramah Battalion operating in the Ramallah area of the West Bank. In addition to the claim, according to the fighter's testimony, that she was refused to move to the West Bank undercover unit for gender reasons, the petition does not provide evidence for this. In its response, the police did not address this testimony but provided other considerations for not assigning her.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Border Guard undercover unit finally open to female fighters appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The Civil Service Commission recently conducted an investigation against officials in the Chief Rabbinate for allegedly improperly adding foreign rabbinical courts to the list of recognized conversion bodies, putting the status of the converts in doubt.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The Investigations Department of the Civil Service Commission investigated senior rabbinate officials on suspicion that they acted in their official capacity to benefit an associate of a member of the Chief Rabbinate Council. 

The suspicion is that a private rabbinical court abroad belonging to that associate was added to the list of recognized conversion courts illegally. Additionally, it was investigated whether the director general of the rabbinate defied the legal counsel of the Chief Rabbinate after it instructed that this court be removed from the list.

A senior prosecutor from the High Court of Justice Department in the State Attorney's Office testified in the commission's investigation, saying: "Political elements exerted pressure and tried to take advantage of me." 

It is unclear what will become of those who converted in those courts since the State of Israel effectively recognized their conversions before suspicions were raised that they were potentially acting without proper vetting. The affair was exposed following monitoring by the ITIM organization, which filed a petition to the High Court on the matter.

The State of Israel recognizes conversions performed by rabbinical courts abroad only if the court was approved by a committee in the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and meets extremely stringent measures. Converts turn to the state after converting abroad if they wish to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return, or if they want the state to recognize their marriages.

Generally, converts prefer to turn to a court recognized by the State of Israel, and state recognition of rabbinical courts is considered a prestigious status symbol in Jewish communities abroad. State recognition also has financial implications for the court, which operates as a private business.

In 2021, the former Minister for Religious Services, Matan Kahana, appointed the Chief Rabbinate's legal advisor as acting director general, leaving the legal advisor position vacant. The legal advisor serves as the "gatekeeper" at the rabbinate, including on the committee responsible for recognizing rabbinical courts abroad.

Civil Service Commission said the following in a statement: "An investigation file was opened against the director general of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, during which the Disciplinary Investigations Department conducted many investigative actions. This included taking testimony from relevant parties and questioning suspects in the case, including the director general. As is customary, at the end of the investigation, the case was transferred to for review."

The Chief Rabbinate of Israel said the following in a statement: "The actions of the Rabbinical Courts recognition committee were carried out lawfully and met all required standards. The petition filed lacks any factual basis, and its hollowness speaks for itself. The Sephardi Chief rabbi (Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef) is not a member of the committee, and has no special connection to the approved courts, except for a general acquaintance by virtue of his position."

Unlike the commission's response, the rabbinate stated that "The director general was not investigated, but rather summoned to testify."

Atty. Ela Sakat, Head of Itim's Legal Department: "It is frustrating and infuriating to see how the Chief Rabbinate exploits the power and authority granted to it by the State of Israel in order to provide benefits to associates, without having to meet any of the rules that the Rabbinate itself established. It seems rules only need to apply to those who are not close to the trough.

"It is not enough for the Rabbinate to conduct itself this way within the country's borders, but they are also working to export the same conduct to Jewish communities abroad and the rabbinical courts located there. The recently filed High Court petition seeks to put an end to this."

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Will alleged misconduct by Chief Rabbinate invalidate conversions abroad? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

An exclusive recording obtained by Israel Hayom of a Judicial Selection Committee meeting in 2020 offers a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the legal system and what might have been the catalyst of the tumultuous efforts to reform Israel's judicial system. 

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

On Nov. 15, 2020, members of the committee convened in the office of then-Justice Minister Avi Nissenkorn following a two-year break due to the multiple election rounds. 

Video: Israelis protest against the judicial reform / Credit: Moshe Ben Simhon

The gathering, which started with handshakes, quickly turned into a shouting match. 

All the tensions regarding the nature of the Supreme Court accumulated on the committee's table. 

Right-wing committee members were tasked with promoting to the district court the wife of then-Cabinet Secretary Tzahi Braverman, a close associate of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 

In the recording, Likud members Miri Regev and Osnat Mark (who is no longer an MK), can be heard repeatedly pushing Supreme Court President Esther Hayut and Nissenkorn to approve the promotion. This is despite harsh opinions against the judge written by then-Tel Aviv District presidents, judges Ruth Lorech and Eitan Orenstin. Data submitted by Nava Braverman to the committee and opposing opinions did manage to decrease the judges' opposition to the promotion, but Hayut rejected the initiative and condemned Regev and Mark for the proposal.

Video: Explosive recording of 2020 Judicial Selection Committee meeting / Credit: Liron Erez

Likud did not have a majority in the committee, the same as now, and it was controlled by a bloc of Supreme Court judges, the justice minister, and members of the Israel Bar Association. Mark lamented that the bloc rejected all their candidates and only selected Hayut's nominees. 

"We have no influence on the committee, it's simply absurd," she said. 

Regev, in turn, told Hayut that she "trusted" the president, "who told me that this is open for discussion and that you haven't made a deal among yourselves."

Hayut immediately replied, saying, "Up for discussion, not negotiation."

Mark rejected, "What do we do in a discussion if not negotiate?"

Hayut reiterated, "No, we don't negotiate." 

The debate exploded when Regev and Osnat tried to promote Judge Ron Solkin, who is also a nominee for promotion this year. The meeting revolved around the question of the judicial activism of the judges of the magistrates' and district courts. In the recordings, Regev claims that the judges all had "similar DNA," to which Hayut replied, "These are empty slogans." 

Nissenkorn sided with Hayut, and the argument with Regev turned into a shouting match. Regev and Mark did not attend the next meeting, and the committee appointed about 60 judges in one sitting.

Then-Knesset Speaker, and later justice minister, Yariv Levin, called the meeting a "disgrace" and argued that the committee should be changed. 

It is this attempt to reform the justice system that stirred the nation and led to nationwide protests last year. 

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post 'We have no say': Explosive recording of 2020 judicial appointment meeting revealed appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

A patriotic Israeli journalist would find it extremely challenging to refer to the hearings in The Hague with the degree of objectivity required in the legal profession, and that is probably not such a bad thing. Having said that; however, we can sum up the situation as follows: after a good and very worrying opening by the South African prosecution, some sense of a comeback was felt following the highly impressive appearance of the Israeli defense team. To the extent that this was in general a legal hearing, rather than a diplomatic session under the guise of a legal proceeding, then the team managed to touch on the correct points and even launched a counter-offensive against South Africa itself.

Notwithstanding; however, the assumption is that the court will respond to the prosecution's motion to issue provisional measures (the international law equivalent of an interim injunction) – though these might well be 'toned-down' provisional measures that will not put an end to the fighting but might well limit it.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Israel's statement of defense left no stone unturned and refined the moral and legal mandate that forms the basis of Israel's various military actions in the Gaza Strip. As far as the South African claims regarding the various comments made by senior Israelis are concerned, the defense team explained that most of these individuals are not members of any relevant decision-making forums. What is more, those same decision-making forums, including the prime minister himself, outrightly condemned such remarks. Other statements made, such as those of the Minister of Defense, for example, can only be interpreted as having been made in relation to the destruction of the Hamas terrorist organization and all its individual terrorists, and clearly not the civilian population in Gaza.

The defense presented numerous and extensive actions undertaken by Israel to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza, but wisely put this in its correct context, stating that the current situation is the clear outcome of Hamas' actions and thus it is the terrorist organization that has condemned the Gaza Strip residents to this plight. Israel's Supreme Court judge, Justice Noam Solberg, aptly defined this in one of the court rulings issued in relation to holding the bodies of dead terrorists in exchange for the return of the hostages from Gaza, when he stated that such actions are "no more than the rotten fruit of murderous terrorism, which is the result of the actions of the cruel enemy, and we have no choice but to do so." In other words: tough and painful actions must also be interpreted as good and necessary. Professor Malcolm Shaw KC, hit the nail on the head when he said that even should any violations of international law be found there is absolutely no factual basis for the collection of accusations to establish grounds for even the suspicion of genocide. There was clearly no such intention of doing so.

In addition to this, the defense team invested a concerted effort in rejecting the actual facts presented by the prosecution. Thus, for example, South Africa alleged that the residents of the northern Gaza Strip received a mere 24-hour warning to leave their homes prior to Israel attacking the area. To refute this allegation, Dr. Galit Raguan, who displayed outstanding professional skill and quality as a lawyer throughout the hearing, demonstrated that Israel had actually warned the Gaza residents three weeks prior to the Israeli offensive, so much so, in fact, that in practice the IDF revealed to Hamas the focus of its initial offensive efforts. This is merely one example of the many the Israeli team presented.

The real face of South Africa

Professor Shaw underscored an important fact, which truth be told, we in Israel tend to forget. "South Africa spoke about occupation and apartheid against the Palestinians from a perspective of 75 years, but why stop there? Why not go back to 1922 when the League of Nations declared its recognition of the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country"? In fact, why not 3,200 years earlier when the tribes of Israel entered the Land?" In other words, the Tanakh or Bible continues to be the title deed.

The Deputy Attorney General for International Law, Dr. Gilad Noam, who summed up the arguments for the defense, underscored an important point: not only is there no basis for a decision establishing suspicion of genocide, but in practical terms, it actually undermines the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In essence, it turns the convention into a certificate of immunity for terrorist organizations who themselves carry out proven acts of genocide, as we ourselves witnessed first-hand on October 7. That would be a moral injustice on an international scale. South Africa, whose government is composed of some of the original pioneers who toppled the apartheid regime there, has decided to embark on a crusade against what it considers to be similar regimes all around the world. However, somewhere on the way it has sharply veered off course, shaking hands with the Islamist Nazis from Hamas, and electing to attack the very people who, not so long ago in the course of history, was itself saved from annihilation, a people that Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and other 'like-minded' entities would love to see sent back to the crematoria. Crematorium here is being used in the literal sense of the word, just as Hamas did in Kibbutz Be'eri, for example.

As hinted above, we cannot say for certain that the hearing in The Hague is indeed a legal proceeding. The assumption among many lawyers and also among the members of the Israeli team is that the ICJ (International Court of Justice) will grant the prosecution's motion and indeed order provisional measures. Having said that, and perhaps more importantly too, the level of the current hearing has the ability to fend off provisional measures that might be sufficient to put an end to the combat in Gaza, an option that Israel clearly cannot accept, and thus make do with much more modest measures. For example, a measure instructing Israel to launch an investigation into various statements, an order instructing that the Gaza Strip be fully opened for the introduction of humanitarian equipment, an order limiting certain modes of combat, or a general declarative order instructing Israel to act in accordance with international law. Israel should be able to live with the majority of such eventualities.

A strategic threat

The inherent danger in putting a stop to the war has returned international law to the limelight. International law is not merely the flowery rhetoric of global left-wing activists, but it really can pose a genuine strategic threat to Israel. Israel does not act alone and is a member of the community of nations, as well as the leading global states that were quick to send naval destroyers to the region immediately following the outbreak of war – and only this week those same nations struck at the Houthis in Yemen in response to their continued attacks on Israeli commercial shipping. International law is something that needs to be discussed, it is not binding, and it is even appropriate to level criticism at the legal system in relation to claims calling for limiting military action; nonetheless, from this week it has become apparent that all this has entered into a much more balanced context. This week too, we have sobered up.

When coming to defend the state we can don a helmet and a combat vest, but we can also wear a suit and tie and use legal arguments for our ammunition. No superlative would be an exaggeration when attempting to describe the dramatic importance of the hearing in The Hague. The intensity of this fateful hearing was glaringly apparent on the face of Gilad Noam, which remained devoid of emotion with only his eyes blinking from time to time. Dr. Noam, an individual whom most Israelis have probably not heard of to date, together with Dr. Raguan, Dr. Tal Becker, and the other members of the Israeli legal team, are the legal equivalent of the elite IDF 'Sayeret Matkal' unit, sent to the ICJ in order to save us. We can of course always find one or two additional points for improvement, such as placing greater emphasis on the tragedy of the Israeli hostages, but these are far from being of vital importance. A journalist does not usually write thanks to the subjects of his criticism, but an Israeli patriot cannot refrain from doing so: thank you!

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post This is how Israel struck back against its haters at The Hague appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Israel was unable to proceed with a planned campaign to display the photographs of Israeli hostages on billboards in the Netherlands during the International Court of Justice hearing on the Gaza war due to the refusal by local companies to exhibit them.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The design includes photos of hostages still held in Gaza, such as baby Kfir Bibas as well as Noa Argamani and Naama Levi, with the words "They can't testify today."

The campaign is meant to raise awareness while the trial is taking place of the over 120 hostages still held by Hamas, witnesses to the crimes of genocide that the terror group committed against Israelis on Oct. 7.

Israel reached out and was turned down by over ten billboard companies in the areas of the Hague, Rotterdam, and the Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam.

The companies came under fire by officials and drew accusations of limiting free speech and trying to silence Israel.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Dutch companies turn down requests to display posters with Israeli hostages appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The government voted Thursday to shut down the Al- Jazeera news station's Israel bureau for harming national security and inciting violence.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

Proposed by Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi, the regulation seeks to revoke the Qatar-based news outlet's broadcast license for exposing Israeli soldiers to potential attacks by Hamas terrorists.

Video: Al-Jazeera uses terrorist attacks as a means of pressuring Israel / Credit: Al-Jazeera

"This is a station that incites, this is a station that films troops in assembly areas ... that incites against the citizens of Israel – a propaganda mouthpiece," Karhi told Army Radio. "It is unconscionable that Hamas' message goes through this station."

The unprecedented wartime proposal has been vetted by Israeli officials and legal experts.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Israel bureau of Al-Jazeera to be shut down for endangering national security appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The special committee investigating the so-called Pegasus Affair over improper use of spyware by state agencies has postponed Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara's interview until the Supreme Court determines the scope of the investigation,  Israel Hayom has learned.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

This decision comes after Baharav-Miara, in a letter to the committee, made it clear that any meeting would only take place after the justices weighed in on the petitions that have challenged the committee's authority.

Video: AG Baharav-Miara sworn in // Credit: GPO

The affair deals with the spyware known as Pegasus. The Israeli company NSO has been accused of selling the program to various regimes around the world who then reportedly used it for their own domestic spying against dissidents and various other groups. NSO has long claimed that all exports and transactions were approved by the relevant Israeli authorities and that in no way was it involved in human rights abuses and other potential uses that were not authorized. In Israel, there have been accusations that the program was used by law enforcement without getting a proper warrant to create real-time wiretapping of officials' devices. Police have denied any wrongdoing. An investigation commissioned by then-Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, which consulted NSO's logs of clients' surveillance targets, found the reports to be unfounded.

Israel Hayom has learned that the attorney general has so far declined every proposed meeting date offered by the committee.

Earlier this month, the committee had invited her to appear before it in its inaugural session. The committee said that she could use the meeting to present her views over the scope of its authority, particularly on whether it could deal with ongoing cases and on the contentious issue of the Pegasus spyware potentially having been used in the investigations into Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cases – which have since turned into a full-fledged trial – involved the illicit use of spyware.

Baharav-Miara had previously said that the committee had no authority to investigate the open cases involving Netanyahu, but Justice Minister Yariv Levin went on to establish the investigative body anyway, prompting the legal challenges by former security officials, including former Shin Bet Director Nadav Argaman and former Defense Ministry Director-General Amir Eshel.

As indicated in her recent response letter to the committee, Baharav-Miara stated that she would only show up for a meeting of this nature after the Supreme Court rules on the committee. If the committee decides not to proceed with its investigation and waits for the meeting, this could potentially result in a delay of months in the committee's work.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Exclusive: Inquiry into spyware abuse in limbo after AG refuses to cooperate appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.