Opinion

Logic and strategy must be considered

Refusing to make concessions to some of Hamas’s terms risks losing all remaining captives, especially those who are still alive.

A sign calling for the release of Israelis held hostage in the Gaza Strip, on Jan. 16, 2025. Photo by Chaim Goldberg/Flash90.
A sign calling for the release of Israelis held hostage in the Gaza Strip, on Jan. 16, 2025. Photo by Chaim Goldberg/Flash90.
Gerald Platt
Gerald Platt is a New York-based investor and president of American Friends of Likud.

The hostage deal between Israel and Hamas carries significant challenges with potentially uncomfortable consequences that cannot be ignored. Some criticism has emerged from within Israel, accusing both President-elect Donald Trump and his special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, of “forcing” an unfavorable agreement on Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. While the criticism is understandable, the situation demands strategic analysis over emotional responses.

Consider the analogy of a baseball pitcher diagnosed with bone cancer. The doctor informs him that his pitching arm must be amputated at the elbow. The pitcher protests, saying, “No, I want my whole arm.” The doctor responds, “It’s either amputation or death.” Neither option is ideal, but a choice must be made. This mirrors the current hostage deal, it’s flawed but preferable to the catastrophic alternative of losing all the remaining hostages.

This weekend, the Israeli government approved a ceasefire deal with Hamas, that includes trading Palestinian terrorists being held in Israeli jails for the release of 33 innocent people taken hostage by Hamas on Oct. 7. This group will include the remains of several deceased individuals, but there is no indication how many living hostages will be released. It is clear that Israel places high value on getting the remains for proper burial and closure for the bereaved families, but there is no doubt that the return of living hostages is much more significant. Additionally, the negotiations and conditions that Israel is willing to capitulate to has very different parameters if the returnees are alive or deceased.

The deal has sparked varied reactions. Netanyahu acknowledged the deal’s significance as he faces internal opposition from right-wing coalition members, who professed that no deal was better than a bad deal.

This delicate arrangement reflects the complexity of negotiating with a group like Hamas. Time is of the essence for the release of the hostages. Refusing to make concessions to some of Hamas’s terms risks losing all remaining captives, especially those who are still alive. While negotiating with such a group is deeply unpalatable, prioritizing human lives must take precedence.

A pragmatic approach today does not preclude strategic action against Hamas in the future.

During his recent Senate confirmation hearing, Pete Hegseth, Trump’s nominee for secretary of defense, made a resolute statement, saying, “I support Israel destroying, killing every last member of Hamas.”

No doubt, he is strongly representing the Trump agenda and initiative.

Trump’s business-like ideology is grab whatever you can now as we can always re-assess tomorrow how to further achieve our goals. It is a philosophy that often emphasizes immediate gains with the flexibility to adjust strategies later. This aligns with the Trump administration’s broader agenda to combat global terrorism aggressively.

While eradicating Hamas may be a long-term goal, the immediate priority for Israel must remain on preserving lives and ensuring the return of hostages. This objective underscores the importance of logical decision-making in these high-stakes moments.

We need to keenly monitor and understand Trump’s psyche, objectives and intentions, which are vital in navigating this complex situation.

It is easy to cast blame or express frustration at the imperfections of the current situation, yet it is essential to prioritize actions that will save lives and preserve future opportunities. The complexity of the circumstances demands a careful, measured approach that weighs both immediate outcomes and long-term consequences.

The opinions and facts presented in this article are those of the author, and neither JNS nor its partners assume any responsibility for them.
Topics