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.
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
China has successfully held its Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, with 53 of 55 countries from the African Union (AU) participating. The two countries that did not participate were Eswatini and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which have no diplomatic relations with China. Twenty-four leaders were reported to have participated. Despite African countries complaining about summit fatigue, with recent summits held with Russia, Italy, South Korea, the US and Indonesia, as well as Japan next month, they still turned up in large numbers in Beijing. China’s ability to attract most of the African leaders to a summit demonstrates that it is still being
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday was handcuffed and escorted by police to the Taipei Detention Center, after the Taipei District Court ordered that he be detained and held incommunicado for suspected corruption during his tenure as Taipei mayor. The ruling reversed an earlier decision by the same court on Monday last week that ordered Ko’s release without bail. That decision was appealed by prosecutors on Wednesday, leading the High Court to conclude that Ko had been “actively involved” in the alleged corruption and it ordered the district court to hold a second detention hearing. Video clips