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.