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.
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS