Netanyahu pushing 'military solution' to free hostages: Source

Newsweek

a few seconds ago

Newsweek

U.K., France Recognize Palestinian State—Will it Matter? Newsweek Writers Debate

This week, Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu said the Israel Defense Force would occupy the Gaza Strip, following announcements by France, Canada, and the United Kingdom that they would recognize Palestine as a state. Will recognition of Palestine make a difference? What would it take to achieve peace in Gaza? Newsweek contributors Dan Perry and Daniel R. DePetris debate: Dan Perry: France, the U.K., and others may mean well by considering recognition of Palestine, but doing so now would backfire badly by sending the message that terrorism works—that the October 7 massacre by Hamas has brought Palestinians closer to their goal. At a moment when Arab states are finally calling on Hamas to disarm, Western recognition would embolden extremists and further alienate Israelis. What is essential now is the removal of Hamas as a military force from the Palestinian arena. Only then—and only under moderate, unified leadership—should the West actively support a demilitarized Palestinian state. Daniel R. DePetris: The decision by the U.K. and France to recognize an independent Palestinian state is unlikely to have any effect on the situation whatsoever. This was the definition of a symbolic move, in large part due to frustration over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's stewardship of the war in Gaza as well as the horrible images depicting starvation that are streaming out of the enclave. The facts on the ground are such that a two-state solution—a U.S. policy objective for decades across Republican and Democratic administrations—is at best on life support and at worst already dead. The U.K. and French bids won't change this. Only the decisions of Israel and the Palestinians will. Perry: You're right that only those parties can make peace. But recognizing Palestine now would give Hamas a massive political lifeline with the Palestinian public despite its military thrashing by Israel. It signals that violence, even a global-historic massacre like October 7, yields previously unachievable diplomatic results. Without Hamas' removal, Israel won't move an inch. That's why this gesture risks sabotaging the outcome it seeks, and at the very least will need to be messaged very carefully. DePetris: Hamas was becoming more rigid in its negotiating stance before unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state became a mainstream policy in European capitals. I'm not so sure this latest move gives Hamas anything more than a short-term propaganda boost that will inevitably die out as the war continues. Right now, Palestinians in Gaza are focused on surviving, not on state-building—and Israel, particularly under Netanyahu's government, is unlikely to move an inch on statehood regardless of the circumstances. Perry: Sure, this Israeli government is as obstinate as they come. One good thing that may come of recognition is to further Netanyahu's unpopularity in Israel. But the main objective is Hamas disarming and leaving power. Perhaps Arab countries, having won this recognition for their brothers, might take further real steps to bring that about. They'll need to make sure the thing I fear—the strengthening of Hamas—does not happen. Newsweek Illustration/Getty DePetris: Of course, Hamas should disarm. But there are a lot of things that should happen, but don't, for any number of reasons. Despite the beating Hamas has taken over the last 22 months, it still remains obstinate, in large part because it sees disarming as akin to surrendering. A similar dynamic is occurring with respect to Hezbollah in Lebanon, yet another anti-Israel militia that ties demilitarization to tangible (and enforceable) Israeli concessions like a full withdrawal. Would Hamas leave its weapons behind if Israel withdraws from Gaza and permanently ends the war? Perhaps. But don't count on it. Netanyahu is more interested in annexing Gaza, pushing an already remote scenario further into the distance. Perry: What needs to happen is an end to the war with reconstruction (as opposed to humanitarian) aid completely conditional on Hamas disarming and leaving, with the people allowed to exit as refugees if Hamas refuses. That would create huge pressure on Hamas, and possibly spark infighting as well. For any of this to work, recognition of a Palestinian state must not be credited to Hamas—that's the huge risk. The Hezbollah case is simply about Lebanon reasserting its sovereignty, which it has finally started to try to do, and here too massive Arab and Western support will be needed. DePetris: You're essentially describing the Israeli position: ending the war in exchange for Hamas disarming and leaving the enclave. If that were realistically possible, it would have been done already. But it isn't realistically possible; to Hamas, disarmament means surrender, and surrender means not having a place at the negotiating table. Netanyahu still believes he can accomplish this objective through military means by squeezing Gaza until Hamas throws up its hands. This is a losing strategy. It has been tried before and it jeopardizes the lives of the remaining hostages. Netanyahu can have the hostages or a full victory; not both. Perry: My dear fellow Dan, disarming Hamas may be spun as a victory for Netanyahu, but mainly it would be a favor to the Palestinians. This diabolical, maximalist group oppresses Gazans and its existence ensures the Palestinians will not have a state. Israel will not budge as long as they're around. There will be no Palestinian state before Hamas disarms, and I actually think both, in one form or another, will happen. I realize you think the two-state solution is no longer realistic—and if you're right, Israelis and Palestinians are doomed to be at war. I'm more optimistic than that, and from familiarity with the terrain I know it remains possible. But just barely. Let's hope the well-meaning "recognizers" don't hinder it. DePetris: I'm going to rain on everybody's parade: the situation in Gaza, and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute more broadly, is as depressing today as it was before the U.K. and France made their dramatic announcements about unilateral Palestinian statehood. Everybody claims they want the war to end, yet when push comes to shove, the United States does next to nothing to move it toward a conclusion. If Donald Trump is serious about seeing the fighting stop, he's going to have to get tough with Netanyahu by leveraging the U.S.' considerable military assistance. Otherwise, his entreaties are just words that mean nothing and risk drawing the United States deeper into a moral conflagration that doesn't serve its interests. I suspect Trump will take the path of least resistance, in which case we can expect the war to continue and the two-state paradigm to be buried even deeper. Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor (also leading coverage from Iran) and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. Follow him at Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a syndicated foreign affairs columnist at the Chicago Tribune. The views expressed in this article are the writers' own.

Analysis: Gaza seems hopeless. Here's a potential pathway for a 90-day solution

CNN

33 minutes ago

CNN

Analysis: Gaza seems hopeless. Here's a potential pathway for a 90-day solution

The Middle East Israel-Hamas warFacebookTweetLink Follow Brett McGurk is a CNN global affairs analyst who served in senior national security positions under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Even as someone who helped negotiate the only two ceasefires of the terrible war in Gaza, including the release of nearly 150 hostages, the situation today seems hopeless and destined to simply continue with no clear end in sight. That is not acceptable. This war must end. The hostages must come home. Humanitarian aid must surge. Gaza needs a multiyear recovery without Hamas in charge. This all needs to start now. So, how? To answer, let's review what happened over the last two weeks, some of the options that are now being proposed, and what might work to finally bring this to an end. Only two weeks ago, there was hope that Israel and Hamas — through US, Qatari, and Egyptian mediation — were on the brink of a 60-day ceasefire. That deal entailed the release of half the living hostages Hamas still holds, thought to be ten people, in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, including more than one hundred now serving life sentences, together with a 60-day ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated areas, daily surges of humanitarian aid, and a commitment by Israel, backed by Trump, to negotiate over those 60 days the conditions to end the war. These promising talks reportedly broke down after Hamas leaders living comfortably in Qatar accepted its terms, but Hamas terrorists holding the keys to the hostages inside Gaza said no or demanded new terms. Israel and the US walked out of the talks, leading to their collapse. In the days that followed, reports emerged of an unprecedented humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza — due largely, it appears, to Israel's decision in March to blockade Gaza and allow no assistance to enter at all over nearly 80 days. Israel now faces a crisis of its own making with the world's attention focused on its misguided humanitarian decisions, as opposed to focusing on Hamas as the obstacle to a ceasefire. Meanwhile, France responded with an initiative to recognize the establishment of a Palestinian state next month without demanding anything up front from Hamas or explaining how such an initiative might help end the Gaza crisis anytime soon. The UK went a step further and said it will also recognize a Palestinian state next month unless there is a ceasefire in Gaza, thereby guaranteeing that Hamas will not accept one. Hamas in turn welcomed these initiatives and released images of an emaciated hostage digging his own grave, thereby making clear that it now has no intent to cut a deal. Before discussing ways out of this impasse, let's stipulate that the delivery of assistance to the people of Gaza is non-negotiable and must continue no matter what. This is not only moral, but strategic, because Hamas views civilian suffering as a component of its strategy. Israel's blockade, a tactic the Biden administration never allowed, was a trap for itself, allowing Hamas to turn the tables even as the group obstructs the ceasefire needed to bring immediate and sustained relief to the population it purports to represent. Israel has since declared humanitarian pauses in fighting and restored delivery of UN aid, even with risk of some diversion to Hamas. This is the right move, and it must continue no matter what option is chosen going forward to secure the release of hostages. The options now being discussed can broadly be categorized into five outlines: 1. Military Victory: Proponents of this option, including inside the Israeli government, claim that Hamas's leaders inside Gaza will never accept a deal. Therefore, Israel has no choice but to further intensify its military campaign, including to find and eliminate those few remaining leaders of Hamas inside Gaza. The hope is that Hamas' control in Gaza will crack, and Israel can then establish a new Palestinian entity to secure and govern the strip, one that is not Hamas or the existing Palestinian Authority. But Israel has been doing precisely this since May, intensifying its military campaign with five divisions deployed into Gaza. This operation, called Gideon's Chariots, did help eliminate Mohammed Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in Gaza at the time, and seize 70% of the strip. but Israel also lost over forty soldiers, tragically killed civilians, and did not fundamentally change the equation or lead to a deal. There is no reason to believe that more of the same will deliver a different result, and to further intensify the war now as international support reaches its nadir carries strategic risks to Israel far greater than any potential tactical military gain. 2. Comprehensive Deal: Proponents of this option claim the obstacle to the 60-day ceasefire deal is its phasing since Hamas demands a permanent end to the war upfront. Thus, Israel should now propose the return of all hostages living and dead in exchange for a full withdrawal from Gaza, the establishment of a new governance structure that is not Hamas, and a large-scale release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. I call this the 'have it all' option because it suggests there is a magic key to free all hostages, end the war, and remove Hamas from any significant role in Gaza. In my experience negotiating with Hamas, however, this proposal likely leads to an even more intractable negotiation upfront. Hamas will haggle over every name on a proposed governing council, demand guarantees such as a UN Security Council resolution against future Israeli operations, refuse under any circumstances to disarm or relinquish security control, and demand the release of all Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. So, this is unlikely a faster path to a deal that brings a ceasefire or returns hostages than the phased deal that was nearly agreed to only two weeks ago. No doubt, Israel and the US missed an opportunity earlier this year to maintain the deal it inherited from the Biden administration, a deal backed by the UN Security Council and one that could have been extended through talks on these issues with a ceasefire in place. The point of this essay is not to argue what might have been, but rather what to do now — and the fastest path to stopping the war and freeing hostages. Opening an entirely new negotiation on a new deal would not achieve either, anytime soon. 3. Stick to a 60-day Proposal: Proponents of this option, and I have been one, believe the fastest path to stop the war and ultimately end it altogether remains the existing phased proposal. Hamas is divided within its ranks and the US could press the three countries with influence — Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey — to demand that Hamas take the deal, release ten hostages, and begin the 60-day pause. The 'or else' for Hamas and its leaders might include exile from Doha, together with requests for extradition to the United States for their role in killing Americans, and new sanctions to ensure they do not set up shop elsewhere, other than perhaps Iran, where they would be less effective and vulnerable to Israeli targeting. This pressure together with international support for the deal would help influence the holdouts inside Hamas. In my experience negotiating these deals, international pressure matters to Hamas as much as military pressure. The problem with this option now is that the French and UK initiatives have removed any such pressure or incentive from Hamas to close any deal, as a Palestinian state has been promised in September no matter what happens with the hostages. Hamas views creation of a Palestinian state not as an end goal but as a stepping stone to ending Israel's existence. Its leaders have deemed the French initiative 'one of the fruits of October 7,' and Hamas has since shown no readiness to renew talks on the 60-day deal, a point brought home with its grotesque displays of hostages starving in tunnels. 4. Unilateral Humanitarian Pause: An outlier option could see Israel declare a 30-day pause on major combat operations to alleviate the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Israel would not withdraw its forces from present positions, and retain the right to respond in self-defense, but it would immediately shift international focus back on Hamas while also allowing the Israeli military forces to rest and refit. True, this would also allow Hamas to rest and refit with no hope of a near-term hostage release, but by alleviating the aid situation, Israel might benefit strategically by taking this card away from Hamas and demonstrating that Israel is now correcting for its own mistakes. It might also demand International Red Cross access to the hostages as a condition for the pause, an issue of urgency given the horrific images Hamas released of hostages in recent days. The problem with this option is that it says nothing about what happens after the pause, further removes pressure from Hamas, and would be extremely unpopular in Israel, both within the rightwing Israeli government but also the broader population, to include most hostage families that rightly demand a process leading to a deal – not a unilateral move by Israel that might benefit Hamas with nothing in return. 5. US Breaks with Israel: Proponents of this option believe the United States should announce a halt on all further arms sales to Israel and demand that Israel end the war unilaterally even with Hamas remaining in control of Gaza. Some go further and claim this should happen even without hostages being freed. Their argument is that the overwhelming priority is to stop the war and only the United States has leverage against Israel to force it into doing so. As for the hostages, proponents of this argument claim that Netanyahu, not Hamas, is the primary obstacle to a deal and that by halting US military support, the Israelis might make concessions needed to conclude a deal. These arguments are appealing to those appalled by the images from Gaza and wishing for a quick fix. But they would do nothing to stop, let alone end, the war. Hamas has shown no serious indication that it will release all the hostages if Israel simply gives up, and if Hamas remains in charge of Gaza there is no chance whatsoever for longer-term peace or an internationally backed relief plan that the strip so badly requires. In any case, this is a politically motivated and not realistic option for those who truly aim to stop the war. It's also highly unlikely to ever happen. Trump is unlikely to break with Israel, and Israel is unlikely to simply withdraw from Gaza without all the Israeli hostages and a deal that helps to ensure Hamas cannot retain its control there. In total, that is a depressing summary — it suggests that every broad option now being discussed is either unlikely to succeed or might make the situation even worse. So, what would I recommend? Senior officials do not have the luxury of admiring a problem or analyzing impractical or politically motivated options. They must think seriously about the best of the bad, or meld options together to chart a new path. That is what I might propose: Because, combining options two, three, and four offers an immediate path to alleviating the humanitarian crisis, returning the focus squarely on Hamas, and parlaying the unconstructive proposals coming from Paris, London, and other capitals. This new path — call it Option 6 — would combine a unilateral 30-day pause in Israeli military operations to alleviate the humanitarian situation with an ultimatum that by the end of the 30 days, Hamas must free half the living hostages to extend the ceasefire by 60 days under the existing proposal. From there, you could proceed with a firm, US-backed commitment to negotiate over those 60-days a comprehensive deal to end the war with a new governance structure in Gaza and the release of all remaining hostages. If Hamas refuses to release half the remaining hostages after 30 days, then Israel's unilateral pause would end. Israel could return to military operations but after its military has refit and with the legitimacy for its objectives somewhat restored internationally. This might also parry the French initiative to recognize Palestinian statehood at the UN general assembly next month: If, following Israel's unilateral pause, Hamas has not released ten hostages, then the obstacle to peace would clearly be Hamas. On the other hand, if Hamas does release the ten hostages and we are entering a 60-day window for negotiations to end the war, then it would not make sense to declare Palestinian statehood at the start of that process, as opposed to an incentive towards its conclusion. At bottom, this is an opportunity for Israel and the United States to flip the script entirely, urgently address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and place the onus for ending the crisis more squarely on Hamas where it belongs. Trump and Netanyahu may not favor such an option as it takes pressure off Hamas on the front end, but it would dramatically increase such pressure — strategic pressure, not just tactical pressure — on the back end. It's also the only viable option at this moment that is likely to achieve what we all want to see: assistance distributed throughout Gaza, hostages coming out of Gaza, and an end to the war with Hamas no longer governing or in control of Gaza. The alternatives might score rhetorical points, but they won't help anyone in Gaza, not the civilians trapped in this awful war, nor the hostages now in tunnels for over 600 days. It's time indeed to flip the script. That means Option 6.

CNN

41 minutes ago

CNN

Analysis: Gaza seems hopeless. Here's a potential pathway for a 90-day solution

The Middle East Israel-Hamas warFacebookTweetLink Follow Brett McGurk is a CNN global affairs analyst who served in senior national security positions under Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Even as someone who helped negotiate the only two ceasefires of the terrible war in Gaza, including the release of nearly 150 hostages, the situation today seems hopeless and destined to simply continue with no clear end in sight. That is not acceptable. This war must end. The hostages must come home. Humanitarian aid must surge. Gaza needs a multiyear recovery without Hamas in charge. This all needs to start now. So, how? To answer, let's review what happened over the last two weeks, some of the options that are now being proposed, and what might work to finally bring this to an end. Only two weeks ago, there was hope that Israel and Hamas — through US, Qatari, and Egyptian mediation — were on the brink of a 60-day ceasefire. That deal entailed the release of half the living hostages Hamas still holds, thought to be ten people, in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, including more than one hundred now serving life sentences, together with a 60-day ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated areas, daily surges of humanitarian aid, and a commitment by Israel, backed by Trump, to negotiate over those 60 days the conditions to end the war. These promising talks reportedly broke down after Hamas leaders living comfortably in Qatar accepted its terms, but Hamas terrorists holding the keys to the hostages inside Gaza said no or demanded new terms. Israel and the US walked out of the talks, leading to their collapse. In the days that followed, reports emerged of an unprecedented humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza — due largely, it appears, to Israel's decision in March to blockade Gaza and allow no assistance to enter at all over nearly 80 days. Israel now faces a crisis of its own making with the world's attention focused on its misguided humanitarian decisions, as opposed to focusing on Hamas as the obstacle to a ceasefire. Meanwhile, France responded with an initiative to recognize the establishment of a Palestinian state next month without demanding anything up front from Hamas or explaining how such an initiative might help end the Gaza crisis anytime soon. The UK went a step further and said it will also recognize a Palestinian state next month unless there is a ceasefire in Gaza, thereby guaranteeing that Hamas will not accept one. Hamas in turn welcomed these initiatives and released images of an emaciated hostage digging his own grave, thereby making clear that it now has no intent to cut a deal. Before discussing ways out of this impasse, let's stipulate that the delivery of assistance to the people of Gaza is non-negotiable and must continue no matter what. This is not only moral, but strategic, because Hamas views civilian suffering as a component of its strategy. Israel's blockade, a tactic the Biden administration never allowed, was a trap for itself, allowing Hamas to turn the tables even as the group obstructs the ceasefire needed to bring immediate and sustained relief to the population it purports to represent. Israel has since declared humanitarian pauses in fighting and restored delivery of UN aid, even with risk of some diversion to Hamas. This is the right move, and it must continue no matter what option is chosen going forward to secure the release of hostages. The options now being discussed can broadly be categorized into five outlines: 1. Military Victory: Proponents of this option, including inside the Israeli government, claim that Hamas's leaders inside Gaza will never accept a deal. Therefore, Israel has no choice but to further intensify its military campaign, including to find and eliminate those few remaining leaders of Hamas inside Gaza. The hope is that Hamas' control in Gaza will crack, and Israel can then establish a new Palestinian entity to secure and govern the strip, one that is not Hamas or the existing Palestinian Authority. But Israel has been doing precisely this since May, intensifying its military campaign with five divisions deployed into Gaza. This operation, called Gideon's Chariots, did help eliminate Mohammed Sinwar, the leader of Hamas in Gaza at the time, and seize 70% of the strip. but Israel also lost over forty soldiers, tragically killed civilians, and did not fundamentally change the equation or lead to a deal. There is no reason to believe that more of the same will deliver a different result, and to further intensify the war now as international support reaches its nadir carries strategic risks to Israel far greater than any potential tactical military gain. 2. Comprehensive Deal: Proponents of this option claim the obstacle to the 60-day ceasefire deal is its phasing since Hamas demands a permanent end to the war upfront. Thus, Israel should now propose the return of all hostages living and dead in exchange for a full withdrawal from Gaza, the establishment of a new governance structure that is not Hamas, and a large-scale release of Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. I call this the 'have it all' option because it suggests there is a magic key to free all hostages, end the war, and remove Hamas from any significant role in Gaza. In my experience negotiating with Hamas, however, this proposal likely leads to an even more intractable negotiation upfront. Hamas will haggle over every name on a proposed governing council, demand guarantees such as a UN Security Council resolution against future Israeli operations, refuse under any circumstances to disarm or relinquish security control, and demand the release of all Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. So, this is unlikely a faster path to a deal that brings a ceasefire or returns hostages than the phased deal that was nearly agreed to only two weeks ago. No doubt, Israel and the US missed an opportunity earlier this year to maintain the deal it inherited from the Biden administration, a deal backed by the UN Security Council and one that could have been extended through talks on these issues with a ceasefire in place. The point of this essay is not to argue what might have been, but rather what to do now — and the fastest path to stopping the war and freeing hostages. Opening an entirely new negotiation on a new deal would not achieve either, anytime soon. 3. Stick to a 60-day Proposal: Proponents of this option, and I have been one, believe the fastest path to stop the war and ultimately end it altogether remains the existing phased proposal. Hamas is divided within its ranks and the US could press the three countries with influence — Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey — to demand that Hamas take the deal, release ten hostages, and begin the 60-day pause. The 'or else' for Hamas and its leaders might include exile from Doha, together with requests for extradition to the United States for their role in killing Americans, and new sanctions to ensure they do not set up shop elsewhere, other than perhaps Iran, where they would be less effective and vulnerable to Israeli targeting. This pressure together with international support for the deal would help influence the holdouts inside Hamas. In my experience negotiating these deals, international pressure matters to Hamas as much as military pressure. The problem with this option now is that the French and UK initiatives have removed any such pressure or incentive from Hamas to close any deal, as a Palestinian state has been promised in September no matter what happens with the hostages. Hamas views creation of a Palestinian state not as an end goal but as a stepping stone to ending Israel's existence. Its leaders have deemed the French initiative 'one of the fruits of October 7,' and Hamas has since shown no readiness to renew talks on the 60-day deal, a point brought home with its grotesque displays of hostages starving in tunnels. 4. Unilateral Humanitarian Pause: An outlier option could see Israel declare a 30-day pause on major combat operations to alleviate the humanitarian situation in Gaza. Israel would not withdraw its forces from present positions, and retain the right to respond in self-defense, but it would immediately shift international focus back on Hamas while also allowing the Israeli military forces to rest and refit. True, this would also allow Hamas to rest and refit with no hope of a near-term hostage release, but by alleviating the aid situation, Israel might benefit strategically by taking this card away from Hamas and demonstrating that Israel is now correcting for its own mistakes. It might also demand International Red Cross access to the hostages as a condition for the pause, an issue of urgency given the horrific images Hamas released of hostages in recent days. The problem with this option is that it says nothing about what happens after the pause, further removes pressure from Hamas, and would be extremely unpopular in Israel, both within the rightwing Israeli government but also the broader population, to include most hostage families that rightly demand a process leading to a deal – not a unilateral move by Israel that might benefit Hamas with nothing in return. 5. US Breaks with Israel: Proponents of this option believe the United States should announce a halt on all further arms sales to Israel and demand that Israel end the war unilaterally even with Hamas remaining in control of Gaza. Some go further and claim this should happen even without hostages being freed. Their argument is that the overwhelming priority is to stop the war and only the United States has leverage against Israel to force it into doing so. As for the hostages, proponents of this argument claim that Netanyahu, not Hamas, is the primary obstacle to a deal and that by halting US military support, the Israelis might make concessions needed to conclude a deal. These arguments are appealing to those appalled by the images from Gaza and wishing for a quick fix. But they would do nothing to stop, let alone end, the war. Hamas has shown no serious indication that it will release all the hostages if Israel simply gives up, and if Hamas remains in charge of Gaza there is no chance whatsoever for longer-term peace or an internationally backed relief plan that the strip so badly requires. In any case, this is a politically motivated and not realistic option for those who truly aim to stop the war. It's also highly unlikely to ever happen. Trump is unlikely to break with Israel, and Israel is unlikely to simply withdraw from Gaza without all the Israeli hostages and a deal that helps to ensure Hamas cannot retain its control there. In total, that is a depressing summary — it suggests that every broad option now being discussed is either unlikely to succeed or might make the situation even worse. So, what would I recommend? Senior officials do not have the luxury of admiring a problem or analyzing impractical or politically motivated options. They must think seriously about the best of the bad, or meld options together to chart a new path. That is what I might propose: Because, combining options two, three, and four offers an immediate path to alleviating the humanitarian crisis, returning the focus squarely on Hamas, and parlaying the unconstructive proposals coming from Paris, London, and other capitals. This new path — call it Option 6 — would combine a unilateral 30-day pause in Israeli military operations to alleviate the humanitarian situation with an ultimatum that by the end of the 30 days, Hamas must free half the living hostages to extend the ceasefire by 60 days under the existing proposal. From there, you could proceed with a firm, US-backed commitment to negotiate over those 60-days a comprehensive deal to end the war with a new governance structure in Gaza and the release of all remaining hostages. If Hamas refuses to release half the remaining hostages after 30 days, then Israel's unilateral pause would end. Israel could return to military operations but after its military has refit and with the legitimacy for its objectives somewhat restored internationally. This might also parry the French initiative to recognize Palestinian statehood at the UN general assembly next month: If, following Israel's unilateral pause, Hamas has not released ten hostages, then the obstacle to peace would clearly be Hamas. On the other hand, if Hamas does release the ten hostages and we are entering a 60-day window for negotiations to end the war, then it would not make sense to declare Palestinian statehood at the start of that process, as opposed to an incentive towards its conclusion. At bottom, this is an opportunity for Israel and the United States to flip the script entirely, urgently address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and place the onus for ending the crisis more squarely on Hamas where it belongs. Trump and Netanyahu may not favor such an option as it takes pressure off Hamas on the front end, but it would dramatically increase such pressure — strategic pressure, not just tactical pressure — on the back end. It's also the only viable option at this moment that is likely to achieve what we all want to see: assistance distributed throughout Gaza, hostages coming out of Gaza, and an end to the war with Hamas no longer governing or in control of Gaza. The alternatives might score rhetorical points, but they won't help anyone in Gaza, not the civilians trapped in this awful war, nor the hostages now in tunnels for over 600 days. It's time indeed to flip the script. That means Option 6.

Netanyahu pushing 'military solution' to free hostages: Source

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

U.K., France Recognize Palestinian State—Will it Matter? Newsweek Writers Debate

Analysis: Gaza seems hopeless. Here's a potential pathway for a 90-day solution

Analysis: Gaza seems hopeless. Here's a potential pathway for a 90-day solution

Netanyahu pushing 'military solution' to free hostages: Source

Hashtags

Try Our AI Features

Comments

Related Articles

U.K., France Recognize Palestinian State—Will it Matter? Newsweek Writers Debate

Analysis: Gaza seems hopeless. Here's a potential pathway for a 90-day solution

Analysis: Gaza seems hopeless. Here's a potential pathway for a 90-day solution

Get Started Now: Download the App