No job on Earth is less attractive than being a head of state forced to decide between cutting a hostage deal with terrorists that risks encouraging repetition or consigning innocents to be murdered. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows this dilemma better than anyone. To get a single soldier back in 2011, he traded more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners, including Yahya Sinwar, the current Hamas leader who more than a decade later masterminded the mass hostage grab of Oct. 7 last year.
So why was there so much anger against Netanyahu over the weekend, rather than empathy for the burden he carries, after six hostages were killed by their minders in a Gaza tunnel? After all, Hamas is the villain of this piece; it is both kidnapper and executioner. Yet Netanyahu’s refusal to agree to a ceasefire provoked the largest street protests of the war to date, as well as a nationwide strike by Israel’s biggest trades union and the shuttering of malls and businesses in sympathy.
Judging by the language of the protesters and the families of hostages, the answer lies in a profound lack of trust in the prime minister’s motivations as he makes decisions of life, death, war and peace for others.
Netanyahu’s 180° change of approach to dealing with hostage takers might be one source of that mistrust.
For example, in the one-for-1,027 swap of 2011, he said he was agreeing to release even Hamas prisoners jailed for killing Israelis because “the state of Israel does not abandon its soldiers and citizens.” Now, he says Israel must do exactly that, rather than “surrender” to Hamas.
A second reason lies in the details of what such a surrender would mean. Hamas has been heavily degraded as a fighting force, so no Israeli troops would be waving white flags. The capitulation Netanyahu is ruling out would instead be specific to the ceasefire negotiations, which have stalled over his late addition of a demand that Israeli forces should retain control of the so-called Philadelphi Corridor.
Netanyahu says that commanding this narrow strip of land along Gaza’s border with Egypt is vital to Israel’s security. Yet his own defense minister, Yoav Gallant, says that is not true. Nor was the corridor even mentioned in Israel’s original ceasefire proposal — an odd omission if it is indeed so critical as to warrant the sacrifice of more Jewish and Palestinian lives.
“The fact that we prioritize the Philadelphi Corridor at the cost of the lives of the hostages is a moral disgrace,” Gallant told Israel’s security Cabinet, which met on Sunday in the wake of the executions, according to a leaked report of the proceedings on the Times of Israel news site.
Other top security officials have also said the corridor is not a make-or-break issue, not least because the tunnels Hamas built under the Egyptian border to smuggle arms begin and end outside it. The deeper source of popular malaise is that Netanyahu has so many apparent conflicts of interest.
A prominent call from protesters is that the prime minister should “take responsibility.” Not only did Netanyahu set Sinwar free in 2011, but the attacks on Oct. 7 last year also took place on his watch. Many have to share responsibility for this spectacular security failure in the investigation that is certain to follow the war, but as the prime minister who oversaw a policy of shifting attention and security resources to the West Bank from Gaza, Netanyahu would top the list.
Ending the war would accelerate other reckonings for the prime minister. The extreme-right leaders on whom he relies for power have made it clear that they would bring down the government the moment he agrees to a ceasefire. They see the conflict as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, a goal that requires the long-term military occupation of Palestinian territories.
Should the government collapse, an out-of-power Netanyahu would face ongoing court cases on charges of fraud, breach of trust and bribery as an ordinary citizen. Jail time is a real possibility. Small wonder that so many Israelis believe Netanyahu is driven by personal, rather than national, interests on decisions that might end the fighting.
I am not at all certain that Netanyahu shares the views of Israeli Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir, who wants to replace Palestinians in Gaza with Jewish settlers and recently made an inflammatory call for the construction of a synagogue on the Temple Mount. That has been the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third-holiest site in Islam, since the seventh century.
Nor can anyone outside Netanyahu’s tightest circle be sure that this great political survivor is driven by anything other than his view of the national interest. As in all such cases, it is the appearance of a conflict of interest that counts, precisely because it erodes trust and encourages people to believe the worst.
Netanyahu continues to enjoy domestic support for pursuing the destruction of Hamas, but as the implications for the remaining hostages of continuing the war become increasingly clear, this lack of trust in his motives is dividing the nation. Politicians around the democratic world have walked away from power over less.
Marc Champion is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Europe, Russia and the Middle East. He was previously Istanbul bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The return of US president-elect Donald Trump to the White House has injected a new wave of anxiety across the Taiwan Strait. For Taiwan, an island whose very survival depends on the delicate and strategic support from the US, Trump’s election victory raises a cascade of questions and fears about what lies ahead. His approach to international relations — grounded in transactional and unpredictable policies — poses unique risks to Taiwan’s stability, economic prosperity and geopolitical standing. Trump’s first term left a complicated legacy in the region. On the one hand, his administration ramped up arms sales to Taiwan and sanctioned
The Taiwanese have proven to be resilient in the face of disasters and they have resisted continuing attempts to subordinate Taiwan to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Nonetheless, the Taiwanese can and should do more to become even more resilient and to be better prepared for resistance should the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) try to annex Taiwan. President William Lai (賴清德) argues that the Taiwanese should determine their own fate. This position continues the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) tradition of opposing the CCP’s annexation of Taiwan. Lai challenges the CCP’s narrative by stating that Taiwan is not subordinate to the
US president-elect Donald Trump is to return to the White House in January, but his second term would surely be different from the first. His Cabinet would not include former US secretary of state Mike Pompeo and former US national security adviser John Bolton, both outspoken supporters of Taiwan. Trump is expected to implement a transactionalist approach to Taiwan, including measures such as demanding that Taiwan pay a high “protection fee” or requiring that Taiwan’s military spending amount to at least 10 percent of its GDP. However, if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) invades Taiwan, it is doubtful that Trump would dispatch
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) has been dubbed Taiwan’s “sacred mountain.” In the past few years, it has invested in the construction of fabs in the US, Japan and Europe, and has long been a world-leading super enterprise — a source of pride for Taiwanese. However, many erroneous news reports, some part of cognitive warfare campaigns, have appeared online, intentionally spreading the false idea that TSMC is not really a Taiwanese company. It is true that TSMC depositary receipts can be purchased on the US securities market, and the proportion of foreign investment in the company is high. However, this reflects the
RSS