The Philistines—biblical enemies of the ancient Israelites—were one of many tribes known to historians as the “Sea Peoples,” who appeared in Near Eastern history in the 12th century BCE. It has long been thought that they originated somewhere in the Aegean, from where they invaded Anatolia and the Levant. But recent archaeological discoveries at Tel Tayinat (known in the Bible as Calno) in southern Turkey suggest a different theory. Julia Fridman writes

More than one inscription found at Tel Tayinat, written in the Luwian language used by the Hittites, referred to a mysterious “King Taita,” ruler of “Walistin” or “Patin.” . . . No one had ever heard of him. It seemed a new kingdom with a new and powerful king was being uncovered. . . .
A breakthrough came [when archaeologists digging] in Aleppo, Syria . . . found a relief and dedicatory inscription to “Taita, king and hero of Patastini” and another to “Taita, conqueror of Carchemish.” Taita had restored this ancient temple and had a dedicatory inscription made of his great achievements.

Based on this discovery, the reinterpretation of one Luwian hieroglyphic sign, and the amassing of archaeological evidence, John David Hawkins, a Luwian expert, [concluded] that everybody had been reading these inscriptions wrong, and that the w sound should in fact be read as a p, making Walistin into Palistin [and] Patasatini [into] Palasatini [i.e., “Philistine].

Rather than the “Sea Peoples-invasion” theory, [the archaeologist Timothy Harrison, who has been conducting excavations at Tel Tayinat] suspects that, over time, Philistines migrated in small numbers to the area, and assimilated with the locals. Their arrival was a complex scenario, he says, not some Hollywood movie-type blitz.

Tamir Hayman analyzes the latest reports about an offer by Hamas to release three female soldiers in exchange for 150 captured terrorists, of whom 90 have received life sentences; then, if that exchange happens successfully, a second stage of the deal will begin.

If this does happen, Israel will release all the serious prisoners who had been sentenced to life and who are associated with Hamas, which will leave Israel without any bargaining chips for the second stage. In practice, Israel will release everyone who is important to Hamas without getting back all the hostages. In this situation, it’s evident that Israel will approach the second stage of the negotiations in the most unfavorable way possible. Hamas will achieve all its demands in the first stage, except for a commitment from Israel to end the war completely.

How does this relate to the fighting in Rafah? Hayman explains:

In the absence of an agreement or compromise by Hamas, it is detrimental for Israel to continue the static situation we were in. It is positive that new energy has entered the campaign. . . . The [capture of the] border of the Gaza Strip and the Rafah crossing are extremely important achievements, while the ongoing dismantling of the battalions is of secondary importance.

That being said, Hayman is critical of the approach to negotiations taken so far:

Gradual hostage trades don’t work. We must adopt a different concept of a single deal in which Israel offers a complete cessation of the war in exchange for all the hostages.