Mick Hartley

The demonstrators in Tel Aviv want the hostages released: Netanyahu wants to defeat Hamas. These aims are, it's becoming increasingly clear, incompatible. Jonathan Spyer in the Spectator on Netanyahu's unenviable dilemma on Gaza:

The murder of six Israeli hostages by Hamas in Gaza earlier this week led to an outpouring of grief and fury in Israel. For a considerable and vocal section of the public, the anger was directed – in a way perhaps surprising to outsiders – not against the Islamist group responsible for the murders, but against the Israeli government.

Large and stormy demonstrations took place in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The Histadrut, Israel’s trade union federation, organised a (partially observed) one-day general strike. The demonstrators’ demand was a simple one: a deal to release the 97 remaining hostages now. At least 33, by the way, and possibly more of the Israelis remaining in Gaza, are believed by the authorities to now be dead.

The demonstrators’ demand, and the government’s refusal to accede to it, reflect the core dynamic of the war in Gaza, which has been apparent from its outset. The current focus is on the future of the Philadelphi Corridor, a nine-mile wide strip at Gaza’s southern border. Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists on a continued Israeli presence on this territory. The demonstrators and those who lead them dismiss the cardinal importance of holding this area.

But the dispute over Philadelphi conceals a larger issue. Israeli accession on this point will open the way to the conclusion of a deal to end the war. According to the terms of the deal currently on the table, Israel will carry out a complete withdrawal of its forces from Gaza, including from the Netzarim and Philadelphi corridors, and from the buffer zone which it has been constructing along the border since the entry of Israeli ground forces into the strip in late October 2023. In return for this, and for the additional release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners – including individuals convicted of the murder of many civilians – Israel will secure the release of the remaining hostages over the three phases of the agreement.

This proposal, frankly and unmistakably, grants Hamas victory in the war that it began with the massacres of 7 October last year. It can’t really be spun any other way. The organisation, having initiated the war, will have come through it intact as the de facto governing authority in Gaza. In addition, it will have secured the release of a generation of Palestinian fighters, both from its own ranks and from the ranks of other Palestinian movements. The price in blood will have been high. But the achievement will be clear.

Netanyahu wants to deny Hamas their victory. The demonstrators, horrified at the suffering of the hostages (as Hamas intended), see their release – whatever the concessions – to be the most important factor, overriding all others.

From the very start, it has been obvious that the goal of ending Hamas rule in Gaza, and the objective of freeing the Israeli hostages were contradictory. The hostages were taken precisely and specifically to frustrate Hamas’s destruction. At the current point in the war, this reality can no longer be blurred.

Regarding the option of accepting the ceasefire deal as is, it is worth remembering that the road to 7 October was paved by an identical deal, though on a smaller scale. Recollection of that deal and its results are the strongest argument against repeating it on a larger scale. Netanyahu and his supporters don’t and can’t assert that argument, though, because the deal took place on Netanyahu’s watch and at his instigation.

The deal in question was the release of 1,027 convicted Palestinian terrorists in return for one kidnapped IDF soldier, Gilad Shalit, in 2011. This took place against the background of an impassioned and emotional public campaign, reminiscent of the current demonstrations. In it, Yahya Sinwar, mastermind and instigator of 7 October and commander of Hamas in the current war, was released.

One should be cautious of prediction in our region. But I have no doubt that the intention, at least, of the Hamas leadership is that just as 7 October followed the Shalit deal, so the successful conclusion of the hostage deal currently on offer will be followed within a few years by a united Arab Muslim military uprising west of the Jordan River, under Islamist leadership, with the intention of bringing about Israel’s demise. These are the current stakes.

There's an article by Liel Leibovitz in Tablet making the same points, though, predictably, in stronger terms. A taster:

It’s all the more tragic, then, that instead of having these painful conversations, Israelis are engaging en masse in the most rank American-style lunacy. Slogans like #BringThemHomeNow, for example, demonstrate just how hollow and inflamed Israeli public discourse has become. To whom, exactly, is this exhortation addressed? Surely not to Hamas, the only group with the actual power to release the hostages. Instead, it’s a bombastic bit of emotional manipulation, daring anyone to defy it while at the same time giving cover to political movements with unclear aims and means. Just like Black Lives Matter—and who would ever argue that they don’t?—the Bring Them Home movement in Israel is now an amalgam of anti-Bibi activists who’ve been marching for years under a host of different banners, bolstered by sheer emotionalism that argues for a deal at any cost, even if it means leaving Hamas victorious.

Thankfully, not all Israelis agree with this defeatist madness. In recent days, a post from an unnamed reservist in Gaza has been going viral in Israel for making a very different argument than the one you hear parroted by self-appointed experts on TV or hear shouted in the streets of Tel Aviv. “The Philadelphi Corridor is more important than hostages,” wrote the reservist. “It’s more important than me and my entire battalion, which has been fighting in Gaza since the beginning of the war.” Approximately every 100 meters, he explained, a tunnel passes through the fence, openings used for smuggling massive amounts of contraband. Therefore, the reservist continued, “leaving Philadelphi for one day means a death sentence for thousands more Israelis … Our blood is no less red than the blood of the hostages, although we are ready to sacrifice our lives for the sake of defeating the enemy.” Take a deep breath, the reservist concludes, “and think again about your rhetoric. Now you are on the side of our worst enemy.”

For the other side of the argument – and to appreciate how polarised the ongoing debate has become – see David Horovitz's latest editorial in the Times of Israel – Under Netanyahu, Israel is in existential danger:

It is truly unthinkable.

That the prime minister of Israel would manufacture an unwarranted demand, and present it as existential, in order to thwart a potential deal for the release of the hostages held for almost a year by Hamas in Gaza. And to do this because he fears that the extremists with whom he built his government, who are hellbent on plunging Israel into regional war, would otherwise force him from power….