US strategy on Gaza hostages needs a new approach

By PETER FISHKIND

As we approach the month of October and the passage of a full year since Hamas invaded Israel, killing over 1200 people, including 43 Americans, and kidnapping hundreds of other innocents, American supporters of Israel must ask ourselves what our government is doing to free the hostages being held in Gaza and ensure that such an attack is never allowed to occur again.

This point of reflection takes on particular significance a few weeks after the tragic news of the murders of Hersh Goldberg-Polin, Carmel Gat, Eden Yerushalmi, Alexander Lobanov, Almog Sarusi, and Ori Danino. For millions of Americans, Hersh Goldberg-Polin is a household name. He was a native of Berkeley, California, held both American and Israeli citizenship, and was taken hostage by Hamas on October 7 after attending the Nova music festival where he had part of his arm blown off by a Hamas grenade. Following his capture, Hersh’s parents, Jon and Rachel, dedicated their lives to spreading awareness about their son and promoting efforts to bring him back home. Shortly before his murder, Jon and Rachel spoke before the Democratic National Convention and delivered deeply moving remarks about their son that sparked chants amongst the crowd to “bring Hersh home.”

The public-facing American strategy relating to the hostage negotiations appears to hold the primary aim of achieving an agreement between Israel and Hamas. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has taken dozens of visits to the region since October 7 to meet with the Israelis, Qataris, Egyptians, and others, to urge those with influence over the situation to help achieve an agreement. Following the Secretary of State’s most recent visit to Israel and meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, Secretary Blinken said on August 19 that Israel had agreed to the withdrawal requirements from Gaza that are part of the most recent “bridging proposal” and that it was “now incumbent on Hamas to do the same,” in terms of meeting their obligations under the proposal to reach an agreement. One can look also at the comments from Vice President Kamala Harris during her August 29 interview with CNN’s Dana Bash to conclude that the American priority is to achieve “a deal.” The Vice President said “we must get a deal that is about getting the hostages out” and repeated the phrase “we have to get a deal done” twice after follow up from Ms. Bash. A similar statement was made most recently during the September 10th Presidential Debate where, after being asked about the war between Israel and Hamas, Vice President Harris said that “this war must end … immediately, and the way it will end is we need a cease-fire deal and we need the hostages out.”

While other statements, including the statement issued by the Vice President focusing on Hamas’s murder of Hersh Goldberg-Polin have stated that “[t]he threat Hamas poses … must be eliminated and Hamas cannot control Gaza,” this rhetoric has not been the focus of most of the public-facing diplomacy concerning the Israel-Hamas war. Worse yet, the aim to remove Hamas from power in Gaza does not appear achievable if the war was to end “immediately” with a “cease-fire deal” as the Vice President declared her aim to be during the September 10th Presidential Debate.

There are significant limitations in trying to interpret the “motives” of the sociopathic fanatics that are setting strategy for Hamas. However, one must try to understand the way Hamas interprets American declarations and why Hamas would murder these hostages when their lives are the main currency Hamas holds in any negotiations. The most likely rationale for Hamas’s actions is that they believe these murders will increase pressure on the Americans who will further pressure Israelis to cede to Hamas demands in ongoing negotiations. As an American I reject these tactics and urge my government to do the same.

 In short, what we have been doing has not been working. The efforts to prioritize “an agreement” as the central aim of our strategy has only been interpreted by Hamas as a willingness to accept “an agreement” at any cost.

We need to change this calculus before Hamas, as well as Iran and every other malign actor watching the American posture in the Middle East, doubles down further on their strategy of murder and extortion to achieve their aims. For Hamas, their primary aim appears to be to survive and retain control over Gaza. If achieved, Hamas and its allies will declare victory and only place Israel and America in a more dangerous position. Hamas will regroup and launch further attacks in the future, and any other adversary will conclude that Israel and America lack the willingness to destroy their enemies and calculate that they can also launch attacks that will not result in their own demise. Likewise, American and Israeli allies will question the value of our commitments should they be attacked by our joint adversaries.

 American strategy must move forward with a new resolve to pressure Hamas, both directly and indirectly with every means at our disposal to surrender and release the hostages. This includes a significant change in public rhetoric from American officials that prioritizes the dismantling of Hamas as key to any future for Gaza. It also includes a renewed pressure campaign on the Qataris and Turks, who host much of the Hamas leadership, and Egypt, who allowed untold numbers of munitions to flow to Hamas through the Egyptian-Gaza border. These efforts must include a determination to bring Hamas’s leadership and their enablers to justice, whether that be the political, financial, or military patrons of Hamas that are responsible for the situation we find ourselves in today. And, I would also suggest that it includes a vision towards a future for a region that has no place for those who believe American blood can be spilled without severe retribution. Anything short of this risks inviting further weakness and future depravity by Hamas and others seeking to harm Israelis, Americans, and any others in the Middle East or beyond who yearn for a better future built on coexistence rather than violence and destruction.

---

Peter Fishkind Esq. is a publishing contributor at The MirYam Institute and pro-Israel activist in New York. Read full bio here.

PODCAST: Israel's Security Situation & The Iran Deal

Yaakov Lappin & Peter Fishkind Discuss Israel's Security

MIRYAM'S SUMMARY: DR. MICHAEL OREN ON THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION

By Peter Fishkind

On Tuesday, January 12th the MirYam Institute hosted Israel’s former Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, for a discussion, available on MirYam’s podcast channel focused on what Joe Biden’s election will mean for Israel. The first half of the program was a Q & A with Benjamin Anthony and the remainder was filled with questions from members of the MirYam Institute community of adjuncts. The conversation with the Ambassador also focused on recent news events including the riot at the U.S. Capitol.

In discussing Joe Biden, Ambassador Oren described him as a friend of Israel, spoke fondly of his character, and noted that he took specific stances during the Democratic Presidential Primary on issues like U.S. financial aid to Israel to positively distinguish himself from certain other competitors in the race. However, he expressed concern over the administration’s expected Iran policy. In particular, despite speaking highly of the capacity of a number of Biden’s announced foreign policy team and their support of Israel, he noted that the bulk of them played significant roles in crafting the JCPOA. Despite those concerns, the Ambassador stated his hope that the administration will be guided by facts and analysis rather than preconceived ideological goals, that the administration will seek to utilize leverage afforded to it by the sanctions currently in place, and that the administration will avoid showing daylight with Israel whenever possible. 

Certain recent developments, including the testimony of Joe Biden’s nominee for Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, have reinforced the conclusions of the Ambassador. Blinken was generally received warmly by the Committee, testifying that the U.S. Embassy would remain in Jerusalem, complementing the successes of the Trump Administration in facilitating the development of Israeli-Arab relations via the Abraham Accords while pledging to work to increase such efforts. However, as expected, Blinken stated that it would be the Biden administration’s intention to re-enter the JCPOA if Iran was to come into compliance with its terms. As the Ambassador noted, and I agree, the Agreement contains fatal flaws such that a re-entry will cause significant friction in the U.S.-Israel relationship. However, Blinken noted that any such step is a “long way” off and also addressed a critical concern of Oren’s, promising that Israel and other regional allies as well as Congress would be consulted before any U.S. action. If such steps are taken and sound advice is heeded, it will only improve the odds that a policy is best designed to achieve the joint aim of the U.S. and Israel, to prevent Iran from developing the capacity to build a deliverable nuclear weapon. 

Additionally, the Ambassador stated that he does not expect Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to be a particular priority of the Biden administration. Such a stance accords with the U.S. interest, where U.S. meddling has often backfired in its aim of improving Israeli-Palestinian relations. Rather, the Ambassador predicted that a greater focus will be placed on building on the successes of the Abraham Accords, noting Biden’s praise of the agreements during the campaign. As noted, this was reiterated as an intention of Biden’s in the Blinken testimony. 

In discussing the riot at the Capitol, the Ambassador contextualized the events specific to that day within a longer framework of America’s withdrawal from the world. The Ambassador noted that dating back to his time of service as Israel’s Ambassador during President Obama’s tenure through President Trump’s term in office that political leaders in both parties as well as American voters were far more focused on domestic concerns than ones abroad. In the Ambassador's view, the riot was indicative of these troubles and would demand that the U.S. continue its focus on policing itself and strengthening its own democracy rather than foreign affairs. In no uncertain terms, the Ambassador stated that this development will be bad for Israel and the free world, as an American withdrawal will create vacuums to be filled with bad actors. 

This analysis is likely correct as both America’s political divisions and the massive costs imposed by the pandemic will require the Biden administration to focus on domestic issues. However, there is certainly a contrarian view to take here. One could suggest that Americans may respond to the pandemic with an increased focus on global affairs. In fact, its need is apparent, as the virus was birthed in China and spread, in part, because no external actor was on the ground to assess the threat posed by the virus. Similarly, there may be an opportunity to build a political consensus on how the U.S. can most effectively compete with China’s growing economic power and influence abroad.

Unfortunately, while the factors to make such a reinvigoration of America’s broader strategy of engagement with the world are present, it is most likely that other domestic challenges will require too great a focus for any administration to meet them fully in the near term. As a consequence, as the Ambassador noted, Israel will need to continue to diversify its relationships rather than rely on its alliance with the U.S. alone.

---

Peter Fishkind is currently an associate in the Litigation Department at Proskauer Rose LLP in New York. He lives in Great Neck, New York and is a Member of the Nassau County Democratic Party Committee.

Stop Politicizing Jewish Issues

By Peter Fishkind

With the Democratic and Republican Party conventions now behind us, I took some time to reflect on a concern that has been ailing the American Jewish community. Over the past few years, issues of special importance to Jewish voters have become increasingly politicized. Time and time again, matters like the question of support for the U.S.-Israel relationship and specific concerns that antisemitism is on the rise within our political parties, have not been dealt with on the merits. Instead, they have been thrown into the political fray. Acknowledging my own biases as an active member of the Democratic Party, I’d like to use this space to discuss the problems this approach poses for American Jews. 

The first example that has caused me alarm is the allegation that my party, and the political left in general, has an antisemitism problem. My issue with this charge is not that it is manufacturing a controversy. There are those on the left that are, whether they recognize it themselves or not, antisemites. Take a recent incident that came to light in New York City. Just a few weeks ago it was reported that the NYC Chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America included on their candidate survey to NYC Council Member candidates whether they would “pledge not to travel to Israel if elected to City Council.” The only other foreign policy question asked on the survey was whether they supported the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement that refuses to recognize a Jewish right to statehood in any borders. Any group’s call to reject the Jewish people’s right to statehood and design a survey with a singular focus on the world’s one Jewish state echoes past charges deeming the Jewish people responsible for unique evils in the world and is antisemitic. 

Therefore, to my Republican friends reading this article, please know that I am willing to acknowledge the existence of the problem of anti-Jewish bigotry among those who claim to be progressives. I have done so in the past. The purpose of this point is to advise caution to those who are framing the issue in broad strokes. This presupposes that Republicans and those who claim to be conservatives don’t have their own share of wackos or a President who has crossed the line with his words about the Jewish community on multiple occasions. Moreover, it ignores that anti-Jewish bias is a human problem that has existed for millennia. Suggesting that it subsists within a single political camp is a critical error that risks serving as a shield for those of the alternative ideological persuasion.

For what it is worth, while many Jews believe the President holds anti-Jewish animus, I do not. Instead, I believe his views about the Jewish community track somewhat well with what is described in this article. He seems to believe many of the stereotypes about Jews valuing wealth and our supposed business savvy but, through his own worldview, sees them as virtues to be complimented. Due to his reckless comments about Jews as well as a slew of other reasons, I remain unsupportive of the President. 

However, I will readily acknowledge that President Trump has put in place a number of policies of special concern to the Jewish community that I have supported. The President was right to join Israel in recognizing Jerusalem as its own capital, a privilege that, as far as I understand, we grant to every other state whose sovereignty our government recognizes. I also supported his decision to sign an executive order extending protections to Jewish college students facing discrimination in line with a policy previously championed by former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. In fact, the Jewish community as a whole seems to hold a similar outlook on these questions. A recent survey found that disapproval for the President among American Jews hovered at around 70 percent. At the same time, there was net approval of 20 percentage points for the move of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem and 13 points for the signing of the executive order. It also found that Jewish voters disapproved of his handling of antisemitism/white nationalism by a margin of 71 to 22. Should his purported failure on this latter point be taken to mean the Republicans have an antisemitism problem? My answer would be no, and that such framing again does a disservice. Instead, I see this as a specific failure of the President and not one that would occur under a President Romney or McCain.

Moreover, there is recent evidence that suggests GOP voters may not prioritize support for Israel to the extent that many believe. Specifically, one can look to the statements the President made during his successful primary campaign where he promised to remain “neutral” on questions related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and did not suffer a political cost. None of this is to suggest such a change will necessarily happen. It is to suggest that it certainly could happen and, therefore, those seeking to promote the long-term interests of Jewish voters should refrain from making their criticisms in terms of partisan broadsides. 

At the end of the day, there aren’t many American Jews. Making up only about 2 percent of the total U.S. population, we don’t have enough voters in our ranks to sway elections for any political party. Rather, we are largely reliant on our capacity to advocate for our interests and for our allies of good will in both parties to address our concerns. Statements that put forth charges of guilt by association or tar those who share a party with those who have ignored our concerns will only chip away at our community’s capacity to advocate for our interests. Instead, we should move forward with an individualized focus on condemning those actors or the specific statements of our detractors. Recognizing antisemitism and other Jewish concerns on their own merits, without partisan blinders, is undoubtedly the best way to maintain our credibility and raise alarm effectively when lines are crossed.

---

Peter Fishkind is currently an associate in the Litigation Department at Proskauer Rose LLP in New York. He lives in Great Neck, New York and is a Member of the Nassau County Democratic Party Committee.