Hamas’s attack on Israel has given rise to the largest-scale hostage crisis in the country’s 75-year history.
About 200 people have been captured and taken into Gaza, according to the Israeli military.
Over the course of the Arab-Israeli conflict, armed Palestinian groups have taken dozens of Israelis captive.
The vast majority have been Israeli Defence Force (IDF) soldiers, which have been used by various Palestinian groups to secure the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners.
This time, Hamas officials have demanded the release of 6,000 people from Israeli prisons in exchange for the men, women and children taken since 7 October.
While its western allies have strict policies on never negotiating with hostage takers, Israel takes a different view.
Here Sky News looks at Israel’s complex history with hostage negotiations and how it has dealt with similar incidents in the past.
‘Unwritten contract’ between Israel and its people
Armed Palestinian groups have used Israel’s commitment to its people as a bargaining measure to achieve their aims since people were displaced and many killed in the ‘Nakba’ of 1948.
Dr Melanie Garson, associate professor in international conflict resolution and security at University College London, says: “They know the value Israel has always placed on every single life and the explicit promise between the government and the people that they would never leave anyone behind enemy lines.
“That comes from being a very small state fighting for its existence and from the Holocaust when so many people were left unknown.”
The state’s “unwritten contract” with its people also has origins in Jewish law.
The Amidah, a prayer recited three times a day by practicing Jews, refers to God “freeing the captives”. Jewish scripture also prioritises freeing prisoners above feeding the poor.
And safely returning hostages, even those not alive, means the appropriate burial rituals in Judaism can be respected.
Munich massacre
One of the most famous incidents involving Israeli hostages was during the Munich Olympic Games in 1972.
It was carried out by eight members of the Black September organisation, a militant Palestinian group formed in 1970 that took its name from the war between Jordan and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO).
They broke into the Olympic village and at around 4am on 5 September they reached where the Israeli team were staying.
As they drew their weapons a German wrestling judge Yossef Gutfreund tried to intervene and was shot dead.
Two Israelis were killed and nine others, including athletes and coaches, were taken hostage.
The hostage takers’ demands were the release of 234 Palestinian prisoners, as well as members of the German terror group Red Army Faction (RAF), and a plane to take the hostages to an Arab country.
The German and Israeli authorities provided vehicles to take them to a NATO air base where they could then travel by helicopter.
But in a failed rescue attempt all nine hostages and five of the assailants were killed.
Israel launched a military offensive, which they named ‘Wrath of God’, in response four days later. PLO bases in Syria and Lebanon were bombed and 200 people were killed.
Entebbe
Four years later on 27 June 1976, an Air France flight from Tel Aviv to Paris was hijacked by three men and a woman who were members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and RAF militant groups.
The plane refuelled in Benghazi, Libya, before disembarking in Entebbe, Uganda, at 4am the next day.
All 258 people on board were taken to a disused airport terminal under the watch of Ugandan soldiers.
Initially, 47 elderly people, women and children were released, followed by about 100 non-Israelis.
Around 100 Israelis were left, whom the hostage takers said they would let go in exchange for 53 prisoners.
The Israelis refused to negotiate and instead, with the help of Mossad intelligence and the Kenyan authorities, they organised a rescue operation.
Codenamed Operation Thunderbolt, it was led by Benjamin Netanyahu‘s brother Yonatan.
The raid was successful – almost all of the hostages were rescued and all seven of those holding them were killed.
The only Israeli casualty was Yonatan Netanyahu.
Gilad Shalit
The most recent high-profile Israeli hostage was in 2006 when 19-year-old Gilad Shalit, an IDF soldier, was captured in an attack on the post he was stationed at close to the Egyptian and Gaza borders.
After two tank operators were killed and a third wounded, Mr Shalit was taken into Gaza via Hamas-dug underground tunnels.
He was held by members of Hamas, the Popular Resistance Committees, and the Army of Islam over a period of five years.
His family’s campaign for his return spread around the world, with his father impressing on the Israeli authorities: “The government sent Gilad to fight. It must bring him back.”
Mr Shalit was released on 18 October 2011.
It was the first time an IDF soldier had been returned alive since 1985.
The prisoner exchange was also the largest in history – almost 1,000 Palestinian prisoners were released over the next two months.
During his time in captivity, there were heavy bombardments in both Israel and Gaza.
Past ‘no precedent’ for predicting this outcome
In the past, when there has been enough intelligence to show hostages’ exact whereabouts, the Israelis have launched rescue operations.
But these are very high-risk and with Gaza’s high population density and network of underground tunnels, it may prove impossible to locate those currently being held hostage.
This leaves negotiation.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:14
Appeal for safe release of hostages
Nimrod Goren, senior fellow for Israeli affairs at the Middle East Institute, tells Sky News that foreign nationals and women, children and elderly, could be let go as they were in Entebbe.
“Lots of other nationalities being among the hostages could be helpful,” he says. “It increases the interest of other countries – you already have the US, Germany and France offering to help.”
He adds that Israel’s control over humanitarian corridors into Gaza could also be used as a bargaining chip.
But Professor David Tal, chair of modern Israeli studies at the University of Sussex, says the current situation is so “beyond” the usual parameters of the Arab-Israeli conflict that there is no way of predicting how either Israel or the hostage takers will act.
“The nature of this attack is so atrocious, so brutal, it means the past isn’t a precedent that can tell us how it will turn out,” he says.
If the Israelis do negotiate on prisoner releases, it will be through a third-party mediator, possibly Qatar, Egypt or Turkey, as there are no direct lines of communication with Hamas, he adds.
But with Mr Netanyahu’s government vowing the total eradication of Hamas – there could be no one left to negotiate with.
Professor Tal is also sceptical of Hamas agreeing to a release in exchange for humanitarian aid for Gaza.
“Hamas uses its own people as bargaining chips,” he says.
“They want to see human catastrophe in the Gaza strip – they’ll want to prevent humanitarian corridors opening so they can further act against Israel. So I don’t think you can talk about rules or common sense in this case.”
The US has announced it has increased its reward for information leading to the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
In a statement on Friday, the US treasury said up to $25m is being offered for information leading to the arrest of Mr Maduro and his named interior minister Diosdado Cabello.
Up to $15m is also being offered for information on the incoming defence minister Vladimir Padrino. Further sanctions have also been introduced against the South American country’s state-owned oil company and airline.
The reward was announced as Mr Maduro was sworn in for a third successive term as the Venezuelan president, following a disputed election win last year.
Elvis Amoroso, head of the National Electoral Council, said at the time Mr Maduro had secured 51% of the vote, beating his opponent Edmundo Gonzalez, who won 44%.
But while Venezuela’s electoral authority and top court declared him the winner, tallies confirming Mr Maduro’s win were never released. The country’s opposition also insists that ballot box level tallies show Mr Gonzalez won in a landslide.
Nationwide protests broke out over the dispute, with a brawl erupting in the capital Caracas when dozens of police in riot gear blocked the demonstrations and officers used tear gas to disperse them.
More on Nicolas Maduro
Related Topics:
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:40
From July 2024: Protests after Venezuela election results
While being sworn in at the national assembly, Mr Maduro said: “May this new presidential term be a period of peace, of prosperity, of equality and the new democracy.”
He also accused the opposition of attempting to turn the inauguration into a “world war,” adding: “I have not been made president by the government of the United States, nor by the pro-imperialist governments of Latin America.”
Lammy: Election ‘neither free nor fair’
The UK and EU have also introduced new sanctions against Venezuelan officials – including the president of Venezuela’s supreme court Caryslia Beatriz Rodriguez Rodriguez and the director of its criminal investigations department Asdrubal Jose Brito Hernandez.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy said Mr Maduro’s “claim to power is fraudulent” and that last year’s election “was neither free nor fair”.
“The UK will not stand by as Maduro continues to oppress, undermine democracy, and commit appalling human rights violations,” he added.
Mr Maduro and his government have always rejected international sanctions as illegitimate measures that amount to an “economic war” designed to cripple Venezuela.
Those targeted by the UK’s sanctions will face travel bans and asset freezes, preventing them from entering the country and holding funds or economic resources.
Donald Trump has been handed a no-penalty sentence following his conviction in the Stormy Daniels hush money case.
The incoming US president has received an unconditional discharge – meaning he will not face jail time, probation or a fine.
Manhattan Judge Juan M Merchan could have jailed him for up to four years.
The sentencing in Manhattan comes just 10 days before the 78-year-old is due to be inaugurated as US president for a second time on 20 January.
Trump appeared at the hearing by video link and addressed the court before he was sentenced, telling the judge the case had been a “very terrible experience” for him.
He claimed it was handled inappropriately and by someone connected with his political opponents – referring to Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg.
Trump said: “It was done to damage my reputation so I would lose the election.
“This has been a political witch hunt.
“I am totally innocent. I did nothing wrong.”
Concluding his statement, he said: “I was treated very unfairly and I thank you very much.”
The judge then told the court it was up to him to “decide what is a just conclusion with a verdict of guilty”.
He said: “Never before has this court been presented with such a unique and remarkable set of circumstances.
“This has been a truly extraordinary case.”
He added that the “trial was a bit of a paradox” because “once the doors closed it was not unique”.
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass had earlier argued in court that Trump “engaged in a campaign to undermine the rule of law” during the trial.
“He’s been unrelenting in his attacks against this court, prosecutors and their family,” Mr Steinglass said.
“His dangerous rhetoric and unconstitutional conduct has been a direct attack on the rule of law and he has publicly threatened to retaliate against the prosecutors.”
Mr Steinglass said this behaviour was “designed to have a chilling effect and to intimidate”.
Trump’s lawyers argued that evidence used during the trial violated last summer’s Supreme Court ruling giving Trump broad immunity from prosecution over acts he took as president.
He was found guilty in New York of 34 counts of falsifying business records relating to payments made to Ms Daniels, an adult film actor,before he won the 2016 US election.
Prosecutors claimed he had paid her $130,000 (£105,300) in hush money to not reveal details of what Ms Daniels said was a sexual relationship in 2006.
Trump has denied any liaison with Ms Daniels or any wrongdoing.
The trial made headlines around the world but the details of the case or Trump’s conviction didn’t deter American voters from picking him as president for a second time.
What is an unconditional discharge?
Under New York state law, an unconditional discharge is a sentence imposed “without imprisonment, fine or probation supervision”.
The sentence is handed down when a judge is “of the opinion that no proper purpose would be served by imposing any condition upon the defendant’s release”, according to the law.
It means Trump’s hush money case has been resolved without any punishment that could interfere with his return to the White House.
Unconditional discharges have been handed down in previous cases where, like Trump, people have been convicted of falsifying business records.
They have also been applied in relation to low-level offences such as speeding, trespassing and marijuana-related convictions.
Leicester City’s owners have launched a landmark lawsuit against a helicopter manufacturer following the club chairman’s death in a crash in 2018.
Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha’s family are suing Italian company Leonardo SpA for £2.15bn after the 60-year-old chairman and four others were killed when their helicopter crashed just outside the King Power Stadium in October 2018.
The lawsuit is the largest fatal accident claim in English history, according to the family’s lawyers. They are asking for compensation for the loss of earnings and other damages, as a result of the billionaire’s death.
The legal action comes more than six years after the fatal crash and as an inquest into the death of the 60-year-old chairman and his fellow passengers is set to begin on Monday.
Mr Srivaddhanaprabha’s son Khun Aiyawatt Srivaddhanaprabha, who took over as the club’s chairman, said: “My family feels the loss of my father as much today as we ever have done.
“That my own children, and their cousins will never know their grandfather compounds our suffering… My father trusted Leonardo when he bought that helicopter but the conclusions of the report into his death show that his trust was fatally misplaced. I hold them wholly responsible for his death.”
The late Mr Srivaddhanaprabha’s company, King Power, was earning more than £2.5bn in revenue per year, according to his family’s lawyers. The lawsuit claims “that success was driven by Khun Vichai’s vision, drive, relationships, entrepreneurism, ingenuity and reputation.”
“All of this was lost with his death,” it adds.
The fatal crash took place shortly after the helicopter took off from Leicester’s ground following a 1-1 draw against West Ham on 27 October 2018.
The aircraft landed on a concrete step and four of the five occupants survived the initial impact, but all subsequently died in the fuel fire that engulfed the helicopter within a minute.
The other victims were two of Mr Srivaddhanaprabha’s staff, Nursara Suknamai and Kaveporn Punpare, pilot Eric Swaffer and Mr Swaffer’s girlfriend Izabela Roza Lechowicz, a fellow pilot.
Investigators found the pilot’s pedals became disconnected from the tail rotor – resulting in the aircraft making a sharp right turn which was “impossible” to control, before the helicopter spun quickly, approximately five times.
The Air Accidents Investigation Branch described this as “a catastrophic failure” and concluded the pilot was unable to prevent the crash.
The lawsuit alleges the crash was the result of ‘multiple failures’ in Leonardo’s design process. It also alleges that the manufacturer failed to warn customers or regulators about the risk.
Sky News has contacted helicopter manufacturer Leonardo for comment.