Since I wrote this all of ten minutes ago, I learned that Hamas claimed in November 2023 that the Bibas children were killed in an Israeli air strike. It doesn’t change my opinion but it does underscore that no one knows what’s really going on because Hamas holds the cards and we’re too feckless to yank them loose—but there we have it.
If those kids are dead, I don’t know what will go down, but it’s going to be bad.
The hostage deal has, predictably, sparked debate and differing opinions. Historically, I’ve been against such deals — they set a terrible precedent. They are the reason why Israel is over this barrel. Yet, in this one instance, I find myself in favor of the agreement.
The context surrounding this deal is unique and complex. Unlike previous hostage deals (e.g., Shalit, “The Jibril Deal”), the hostages here are mostly civilians who had no idea they were in a war zone. Whether they should have been aware is a legitimate debate, but one for another day. The point is: they were defenseless civilians, especially the babies. Even the soldiers were lulled into a false sense of security1—a scandal in itself, though again, not the focus here.
The emotional and moral imperatives of ensuring their safety can no longer be deferred. In this case, the deal is a strategic and humanitarian decision aimed at preserving innocent lives at a unique moment.
It’s said that this is the same deal that’s been on the table for months. What’s changed?
Context: the destruction of Hezbollah, the fall of Assad, and Trump’s election.
On October 6, and for the 14 months that followed, Israel was surrounded by a “ring of fire” that threatened to choke it to death. Hezbollah (may its name be blotted) is no longer a force. Assad is gone. A Turkish-controlled Syria poses yet another challenge, but (and I might be wrong here) I think Trump will lay down the law to Erdogan. One thing I’m fairly sure of: he will take action against the Houthis. This is all good.
There’s also this—the hostages have a massive base of support in Israeli society. Rejecting a deal to bring them home would have created a rift that might never heal.
What about the ostensible goal of the war: to remove Hamas and wipe it out? I hate to tell you this, but that was a lie from the start. Hamas isn’t Hezbollah; the two are entirely different in terms of the societies they operate within. Hezbollah was the militia of an unpopular but strong minority in Lebanon, a fractured state created as a Christian sanctuary. Hamas, on the other hand, embodies the will of the “Palestinian people,” however that’s defined. Wipe out Hamas, and another group will simply take its place.
I completely agree with those who say Israel shouldn’t be negotiating with Hamas. I’ve said that from the start. I believed it was a disgrace for the US to give Hamas any legitimacy whatsoever, but what can we do? It did. Politics is an abattoir. Are we going to let Kfir and Ariel Bibas grow up in Gaza because of that?
I’m not saying this is a pretty deal, and I’m not rejoicing over it. But I think Israel should take it, look deep within, and ensure another October 7th never happens again.
One final thing. Last night, I actually heard some intelligent commentary on the PBS Newshour. Hussein Ibish raised a valid concern. One bad incident in Gaza could scuttle the deal: there’s literally no oversight, no one supervising or enforcing order.
With that in mind, if any of the live hostages are killed in the interim, the deal is off and this war goes on.
Or ignored, as in the case of the female observers.