Why would Israel agree to a hostage deal with Hamas? Israel agreed to a much worse deal to free another hostage some years back.
This from frontpagemag.com.
That deal and the ones before it were wrong. And yet with a large number of hostages held in enemy hands, and with hundreds of family members rallying for their release, we are not surprised that it was agreed to.
Qatar, a state sponsor of Hamas, came to the Obiden Regime with this. And the Regime wants a political win. After over a month of fighting, a lot of political interests want something besides dead terrorists.
What is noted below may be stating the obvious, but here is why the hostage deal is a terrible idea.
1. After Oct 7, the new rule was that Hamas would no longer be treated like a normal entity, but like an abominable evil that had to be destroyed. The negotiations kill that. Once you negotiate with evil, it stops being unacceptable. That’s why rules exist against negotiating with terrorists. When the taboo is broken, it’s a lot harder to put back into place.
Oct 7 should have restored an absolute taboo. Never negotiate with terrorists. Such actions only serve to encourage future terrorist taking.
2. Hamas has been losing. Its defense strategy has failed. Its best hope for staying in power is to boost morale and make its forces and Arab [moslems] in Gaza think that this was all for something.
Polls show the vast majority of “Palestinians” supported the Oct. 7 massacres. Now Hamas will claim to have delivered a win.
3. The deal endangers other hostages. Hamas wants time to relocate its forces and the hostages. This deal gives it that. Beyond the temporary cessation of attacks, Israel will ‘blind’ itself to its movements.
This not only sets back the war effort, but it allows Hamas to make off with and then kill more hostages.
4. The deal means that Israel is falling back into the same bad habits of believing in negotiated deterrence that led to the Oct 7 attack. Delusions of diplomacy are a bad idea. Especially when it comes to terrorists.
Hamas cannot be negotiated with or deterred. No Islamic terrorist group can. The moment anyone thinks that way, they have lost.
5. Negotiating for hostages leads to the taking of hostages. Period.
The phrase, ‘Pay me now or pay me later’ means a future cost will be greater. Negotiating with terrorists creates future terrorists and future hostages.
6. After Oct 7, there [has been] a conflict within the [Obiden Regime] over diplomacy vs. force. The ‘diplomacy’ crowd will now claim to have won and be in the driver’s seat for setting policy.
This means the agents of Qatar and Iran are back in charge of foreign policy. We can expect terrible implications for American support for Israel’s war effort.
7. Israel had a clear moral case for taking out Hamas. Negotiating with it muddies it and undermines Israel’s supporters.
The elimination of Hamas should have remained the order of operation. Emotion is not a winning tactic to an effective strategy.
Final thoughts: Early in this crisis I read what I thought was a sad but realistic assessment by a former Special Forces Operator: The hostages must not be factored into military strategy. They must be considered lost and the mission to eliminate Hamas must move forward.
Move quickly and decisively and perhaps many hostages may be saved. But do not build a strategy around saving hostages.
