Although his comments have come late in the game, outgoing Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently had some fascinating insider things to say about Hamas’s culpability in the failure to achieve a hostage deal and the rationality of Israel’s positions through all of the twists and turns. And they may help Prime Minister Netanyahu in his efforts to protect Israel’s security interests in the aftermath of the fall of the Assad government in Syria and the emerging Turkish powerplay.
In an interview with The New York Times published last Saturday, Blinken said while it was Hamas’s overall wish to bring other Arab forces into its war with Israel, the core reason why no agreement was reached was a function of Hamas’s viewing public U.S. pressure on Israel as a sign that a better deal was just around the corner, that time was on its side and that its recalcitrance would be rewarded:
“Whenever there has been public daylight between the United States and Israel and the perception that pressure was growing on Israel Hamas has pulled back from agreeing to a ceasefire and the release of hostages…. What we’ve seen time and time again is Hamas not concluding a deal that it should have concluded. There have been times when actions that Israel has taken have, yes, made it more difficult. But there’s been a rationale for those actions, even if they’ve sometimes made getting to a conclusion more difficult.”
And who can forget the negative fallout this past March following Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s call for new elections in Israel to replace the Netanyahu government, President Biden’s publicly blaming Israel for the civilian aid problems in Gaza, Vice President Kamala Harris’s public call for an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza, and the President’s “red line” demand that Israel not invade Rafah. It cannot be overemphasized that these admonitions came on the public air waves, not through traditional diplomatic channels and degraded Israel in the minds of many and parenthetically fanned the flames of an already incendiary antisemitism.
In our view, it was Prime Minister Netanyahu’s perseverance, as well as skills and policy of relentless military pursuit of the enemy that carried the day and resulted in the substantial diminishment of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah – despite the many calls for ceasefires and premature negotiations. Hopefully that approach, and the record of those achievements and Israel’s reputation for rationality will extend to the next set of challenges to its security that it will now face and is intent on dealing with some finality.
And the challenges will be fast and furious.
Last week we noted here Pope Francis’ call for an investigation by the International Criminal Court into whether Israel’s operations in Gaza constituted “genocide” against the Palestinian people. As it turns out this was not to be a one-time shot across Israel’s bow by the Church. The other day, the Irish Catholic Archbishop of Ireland, Eamon Martin, went further and actually charged that the Israeli response to Hamas as “merciless and disproportionate.”
Israel is also drawing criticism in the international community for two laws it recently enacted which would effectively cause the shutdown of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) for Palestinian refugees in the Middle East. UNWRA is ostensibly supposed to provide aid to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians across the Middle East.
Palestinians claim UNWRA is a vital lifeline for the needy, while Israel has determined that it is a dangerous cover for Hamas with several of its employees having taken part in the October 7 massacre and cannot be allowed to continue in operation.
On a more fundamental level UNWRA is seen by Israel as perpetuating the notion of a Palestinian refugee and works against their integration into the Arab world. Indeed, no other UN agency targets one group as its mandated target population.
And then there is the issue of continued Israeli operations against Hamas after the duration of any ceasefire agreement that may be achieved. Netanyahu has said that Israel would resume fighting inasmuch as that would be intended to complete the war’s objective which is inconsistent with the notion of Hamas reorganization. On the other hand, the other side is insisting on international guarantees that there will be an end to the war and the full withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza.
Israel is already facing international criticism on this score but it maintains that it has the right to eliminate the continuing threat posed by Hamas as a fighting force.
The New York Times is also reporting that Israel is continuing to conduct air and ground raids in Syria despite international claims that they violate a long-time ceasefire agreement between the two countries. But Israel’s continuing military operations, it says, are intended “to strengthen the defense of Israel’s citizens.”
Apparently, Israel is intent on maintaining a presence in Syria until matters settle down in the aftermath of the fall of the Assad regime. In addition to issues of the stability of the rebel-controlled government now in charge, Israel is said to be very wary about Turkey’s new prominence so close to Israel.
It seems pretty clear that, having successfully invested so much in its security since Oct. 7, Israel is determined, as they say in the vernacular, “to take care of business” on the broad range of issues posed by its dangerous neighbors.
