(Which is why many hallway cameras were all taped over in earlier footage of lower floors.)
Which would maybe indicate that they were getting medical care? Which is what at least one of the released hostages has said they did once they were in Gaza? 
The video footage shows armed men pulling someone who is clearly resisting in.
The second person though is someone on a gurney who appears injured.
Doesn’t mean it’s not them getting him medical treatment, though. I mean, even if your captors were doing that, would you be cooperative? The fact that there is another person on a gurney indicates that might be the case. So, all this really seems to be doing is to confirm the story of the released hostage that they were getting medical treatment. Whether or not they were also holding hostages there (outside of receiving treatment) remains to be seen.
Possibly the most interesting post I’ve read since this began, from a Gaza resident criticizing Israel, Hamas and PIJ alike. A colleague from Gaza comments that this is the majority view in the Strip today.
English is [Alex Rowell] translation:
Speaking of fakery…
Yemeni Houthis release footage of ship hijacking in Red Sea
The Yemeni Houthi rebels released footage of Monday’s takeover of a marchant ship partially owned by Israeli businessman Rami Ungar. The footage shows the Houthis landing a helicopter on the ship and taking it over at gunpoint.
(Not posting it here but there is a Xitter link in that post to a video that the Houthis (Iran) put together using FPS video game characters overlaid on footage from scene that looks like it came from Taiwanese News Animators.)
PEN International is deeply concerned by news that Mosab Abu Toha, Palestinian writer, poet, and founder of Gaza’s first English-language library, has been arrested by the Israeli Defense Force while leaving #Gaza. We join calls demanding to know his whereabouts and the reasons for his detention.
— In a DW interview, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock urges ‘international responsibility’ in Gaza
“For a cease-fire, Israel and Hamas would have to agree to stop shooting at each other. That would mean Israel would no longer be able to defend itself amid the ongoing barrage of missiles,” Baerbock said, adding that “Israel has to protect its population.”
If Hamas fired rockets during a cease-fire it would be breaking the cease-fire. Israel would then no longer be obliged to observe the cease-fire.
I can’t see how this is different from any other cease-fire.
Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland argues inflicting disease and starvation will hasten Gaza’s surrender
That’s the trouble with diplomatic relations. They use language in very specific ways, not unlike lawyers, but often with much finer nuances.
I am convinced that much in this discussion has to do with the legal perception of terms and wording. And differences between languages which get lost in translation or are used with slightly different meanings do play a role.
Germanophone diplomacy, e.g., uses different terms.
Waffenstillstand is understood in the sense of an armistice in sense of the Hague Convention of 1907 and needs the opponents/partners to agree based on written international law.
A Waffenruhe can also be declared unilaterally, and would still carry an obligation to be respected by the declaring party or parties - a situation which is in line with what you asked.
A Feuerpause is understood to be even more temporary, can also be declared unilaterally, but I believe it would be generally understood as to be a measure for a specific purpose (e.g., preparing a diplomatic exchange between parties) and of a more limited scope. Still, the same would apply in this scenario - any declaring party would need to be truthful to their word.
A humanitäre Pause would even have a more restricted meaning, which should be self-evident - no preparation of talks, no further temporal and spatial cessation of hostilities beyond the point where purely humanitarian aims. Like, for example, evacuation of inpatients from a hospital used by armed combatants.
What’s really not helping is that germanophone journalists and politicians do mix up the the terms, and even scholars of the subject might disagree on finer points. But I believe to have given you a correct gist. (Caveat: IANAL of international law, and I am many things but absolutely not a diplomat. In no way.)
Now, mind trying to translate the following sentence?
Bei den aktuellen Debatten über einen Waffenstillstand wird eigentlich nie daruber gesprochen, das schon eine Waffenruhe von einer der Konfliktparteien schlicht nicht eingehalten werden wird. Selbst eine Feuerpause ist nicht vorstellbar, da kontinuierlich Raketen auf Israel abgefeuert wurden.
That is one major reason why several countries including the US avoid the term ceasefire, and the resolution 2712 also only calls for “humanitarian pauses”. And why Russia abstained, because they insist the term ceasefire to be used.
Does this help?
Which cabinet minister said to use epidemics?
The retired Major General isn’t a cabinet minister.
That would be Bezalel Smotrich.
The paraphrasing isn’t quite accurate, but the article is still awful.
Basically it says that the women are mothers/sisters/wives of Hamas and humanitarian disaster and severe epidemics will convince some of the junior commanders to surrender.
Edit: clarification
