The Israeli War Goal and the Release of the Remaining Hostages Might Be in Conflict With Each Other
American Eclectic posts articles twice a month, on the 1st and 15th. This is the second year of publication; previously published articles can be found on my site.
December 1, 2023
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed a war goal of eliminating Hamas and the Islamic Jihad because of Hamas’s attack on Israeli on October 7th. The credibility of a leader achieving what must be seen as a goal that might not necessarily be in reach is being tested as he must now deal with the push to get hostages released.
As one analyst put it in assessing Netanyahu’s speech made two days after the attack in which he expressed elimination as the goal:
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech is a clear indication that the gloves are off in the Israeli military response to Hamas’ horrific attack on Israeli civilians. While Israel has fought Hamas in the past with one hand tied behind its back, imposing limitations on military targets and trying to minimize civilian casualties, the Israeli mission to destroy Hamas will require it to do more to target and kill Hamas terrorists and destroy Hamas weapons.
This analyst’s assessment had more credibility before the series of negotiations leading to the exchange of hostages. Regardless of the ratio, whether more Palestinians were released for less Israelis (with approximately 15 other nationalities represented among the hostages still held), the release of hostages, raises the issue of whether a war goal as spelled on October 9th, the elimination of Hamas, will remain the goal. Furthermore, Israel has agreed to create a “clear plan” to protect civilians or maybe reduce civilian casualties before they commence their offensive again. Since this has all the hallmarks of a last-minute public relations image makeover, I am sure I am not the only one wondering what this means and how it can even be implemented while still aiming for the elimination of Hamas. Casualties wounded and dead, adult and children will occur, who will define the difference between what is acceptable under a clear plan and wanton destruction and death.
A former Israeli captain in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in an op-ed in the New York Times, voiced the opinion that the release of the hostages was a central feature of this war. Yet, in reading his essay, he made an odd statement:
In a conflict where emotions run high, the release of hostages can be a potent symbol of good will and a step toward envisioning the day after the war, when Hamas and its accomplices can no longer be allowed to rule the enclave.
Good will through hostage release and then we will proceed to eradicate you from the planet. I read this essay and thought: Hostages will be killed. I do not see how staying with the goal of the complete elimination of Hamas, and, I assume, Islamic Jihad, can be anywhere near achieved without some undetermined number of hostages killed.
Any pause, no matter how long, might lead to Israel intensifying its bombardment and assault on positions in Gaza, after the pause is over. Netanyahu and his more right-wing members of his government might have taken it as an “understanding” that by agreeing to a hostage exchange, the “gloves are really off,” to paraphrase the quote from the analyst above.
When the planning for this war began followed the actual bombardment and offensive, Netanyahu and my guess some segment of his government, saw the release of hostages as not practical or even acceptable in this war—the hostages were, unfortunately, cannon fodder.
One analyst stated:
The hostages were not a priority [for Netanyahu] and they weren’t really being talked about. And then they became the priority through public pressure.
International relations scholars, analysts, students are aware of the Realism school of thought, where public opinion plays no or next to no role in the conduct of foreign affairs. The war began with blinders on from the Israeli point of view—they were laser focused on the elimination of Hamas. Suddenly, by some combination of pressure from within Israel, the Biden administration, and, perhaps, a broader international community, Israel was forced to move the hostages from the category of expendables to part of their calculations in how they conduct this war. Public opinion, in some way, started to play a role in the conduct of the war and the question is: Will public opinion from whatever source matter in how this war goes forward.
One way to look at Machiavelli and his often referred to book, The Prince, addressed leaders as having different views of politics than ordinary people. Netanyahu seemed to reflect that position—that the hostages mattered little to him at first—and then suddenly a change in how to look at this war took place, which, to him, might be seen as a temporary roadblock on his path to eliminate Hamas.
In December 1972, for twelve continuous days, then President Richard Nixon conducted what is commonly known as the Christmas Bombing. This involved more than 20,000 tons of bombs dropped on the Hanoi (then North Vietnam) and the vicinity around it leading to an estimated 1,700 people killed. The last time such a large-scale use of long-range bombers occurred was during the Second World War. Negotiations were ongoing at the time in Paris to try to bring the Vietnam War to an end (or at least American involvement in the war). The then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff stated:
The bombings [were being conducted with the] maximum destruction …of military targets [and to] inflict the utmost civilian distress. I want the people of Hanoi to hear the bombs.
A statement such as this gave the impression that only the reason for the bombing campaign was to push North Vietnam along a more favorable negotiating path, but another audience was also present: South Vietnam. Henry Kissinger at the time Nixon’s National Security Affairs advisor stated, “We bombed the North Vietnamese into accepting our concessions.” Kissinger, however, understood that South Vietnam strongly opposed these treaty negotiations.
On January 23, 1973, the United States and North Vietnam signed a peace treaty. Two points about that treaty stand out: 1) The treaty that was signed was not much different than the draft treaty discussed three months earlier, before the Christmas bombings, and 2) The fighting continued after the treaty was signed with North and South Vietnam both aiming to gain territory.
In Nixon’s memoirs, he wrote that the agreement between the United States and North Vietnam had been, essentially, reached by mid-October—well before the bombing. Nixon wrote that the agreement “could now be considered complete.”
South Vietnam had not been a participate in these Paris negotiations and strongly objected to the treaty that was moving toward being signed. The bombing had little impact on changing the terms of the treaty that was eventually signed, but it, at least, had the effect of easing South Vietnam’s acceptance of it.
Why does all this matter to what will eventually be a resumption of bombing and offensive operations by Israel as they aim to eliminate Hamas? Who will Netanyahu be signaling to once hostilities commence. Yes, he will still be focused on defeating Hamas, but how he conducts military operations after a hostage exchange pause, may also signal how receptive or not he might be to listening to domestic and international voices that call for another pause or halt to Israeli military operations. During the pause to exchange hostages, a right-wing faction in Netanyahu’s government threatened to pull out if the offensive did not resume—which could have weakened his government enough that an election might have been needed. Netanyahu stated during this pause for the hostage exchanged, “There is no situation in which we do not go back to fighting until the end. This is my policy.”
A New York Times article stated regarding the casualties in Gaza:
Israel has cast the deaths of civilians in the Gaza Strip as a regrettable but unavoidable part of modern conflict, pointing to the heavy human toll from military campaigns the United States itself once waged in Iraq and Syria.
But a review of past conflicts and interviews with casualty and weapons experts suggest that Israel’s assault is different.
While wartime death tolls will never be exact, experts say that even a conservative reading of the casualty figures reported from Gaza shows that the pace of death during Israel’s campaign has few precedents in this century.
People are being killed in Gaza more quickly, they say, than in even the deadliest moments of U.S.-led attacks in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.
Any intensive bombing and ground offensive will certainly add to the casualty numbers. As Nixon’s Christmas Bombing showed, the audience for military strikes is not always the most obvious audience, and I must wonder that when military operations commence, that while the goal is still the elimination of Hamas, Israel might have other audiences also in mind regarding their military strikes. Will Israel be as receptive to listen to those calling for another pause or halt in its military operations. The hostages that remain might start to end up dead and be displayed in locations where Israel can find them.
Hamas took the hostages with reasons in mind. Releasing some of them might have served their purpose in this first phase of the war, but killing hostages might serve their purpose as the war continues and their position becomes more precarious. There is no reason to assume that the only way to look at hostages is through a series of pauses in fighting leading to more and more hostages being released. I am concerned that death will come to some undefinable number.
This first pause served a public relations purpose for Hamas, it made them look somewhat reasonable. That in and of itself is a public relations coup. A resumption of fighting where the Gaza casualty count only goes higher will be a disaster to Israeli international standing—it does not matter how much the Hamas October 7th attack is remembered.
Israel has released a film, based on footage provided by the IDF of the Hamas killings titled, Bearing Witness to the October 7th Massacre. Much of the film is based on footage taken from dead Hamas fighters who wore body cameras, and the footage shows torture, rape, and murder. Human Rights Watch has verified four films that were from Hamas fighters involved in the October 7th attack. We can assume some of that footage is in this film. One film critic stated of the film, after seeing a baby beheaded:
For a while now, I’ve been too dumbfounded to admit why a video that seemed to emotionally wreck anyone who laid eyes on it would just leave me numb. So I gave it a week, hoping I would have a delayed reaction of some kind, maybe manifesting in my subconscious in the form of a nightmare.
It never did. Maybe it would take a lifetime of psychotherapy to explain why.
But the more I reflected on what I saw onscreen and heard from the speakers before the screening, the more I’ve come to realize I have concerns about the strategic purpose of “Bearing” and what the IDF might do with this footage in the future.
No doubt seeing the film, or just hearing about it will have some impact and help Israel in some undefinable way, but whatever benefits come from the film will be countered by the death and destruction that will resume. I hope a high number if not all of the remaining hostages are released, but I have my doubts. But the hostages still held versus the number of dead Palestinians raises the issue of what type of perspective one has on how they see this war. With an estimated 4,000 children killed by the Israeli offensive in just the first month of operations, it is conceivable that grieving family members might seek out Hamas members and attempt to kill hostages in an act of revenge. I pointed out in an earlier article on this war that Hamas might want to try to recruit fighters from the innocent Palestinians who now have to bear the brunt of this war (How Should We Look at Urban Warfare That Will Come as Israel Prepares to Move Against Hamas in the Gaza Strip). What better way of recruiting fighters than by appealing to families who have had their children killed.
The assumption that a pattern will develop for this war with fighting followed by a pause to allow the exchange of more prisoners followed by a resumption of fighting again, might not be the case. If Netanyahu feels under increased pressure to not drag this war out, but still aims to eliminate Hamas, the intensity of the Israeli offensive could increase. More casualties would subsequently follow and among those casualties could be the hostages still remaining in Gaza and more dead children.
The War Restarts
As I was finishing this article, Israel stated that Hamas fired rockets into Israel and Israel responded. Despite the war resuming, talks are still continuing about another ceasefire. Netanyahu’s office released a statement, which indicated both the war goal of eliminating Hamas and freeing the hostages, which, as I have addressed here, it could be very difficult to accomplish both of these goals.
Notes
Matt Berg, “The calculus behind Hamas’ hostage strategy,” Politico (November 22, 2023): https:// www.politico.com/newsletters/national-security-daily/2023/11/22/the-calculus-behind-hamas-hostage-strategy-00128363
Michael Birnbaum, “Israel will make plan to protect Gaza civilians before fighting resumes, Blinken says,” Washington Post (November 30, 2023): https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/30/israel-hamas-war-news-gaza-hostages-palestine/#link-LS5BVQDLVRCDPLXAWHIPUP7GJ4
“Fighting Resumes in Gaza, but talks over a new truce are said to continue,” New York Times (December 1, 2023): https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/11/30/world/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news#israel-says-gaza-combat-has-resumed-talks-are-said-to-continue
Sheera Frenkel, “Some in Netanyahu’s Government Pressure Him to Reject Longer Cease-Fire,” New York Times (November 29, 2023): https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/world/middleeast/netanyahu-cease-fire-politics.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
Andrew Glass, “Nixon orders Christmas bombing of North Vietnam, Dec. 18, 1972,” Politico (December 12, 2018): https:// www.politico.com/story/2018/12/18/this-day-in-politics-dec-18-1972-1066637
Emma Graham-Harrison and Jason Burke, “Gaza’s children face catastrophe as death toll nears 4,000, UN warns,” The Guardian (November 5, 2023): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/05/gazas-children-face-catastrophe-as-death-toll-nears-4000-un-warns
“Israel/Palestine: Videos of Hamas-Led Attacks Verified,” Human Rights Watch (October 18, 2023): https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/10/18/israel/palestine-videos-hamas-led-attacks-verified
Moshe Emelio Lavi, “The Hostages Are Not a Diversion From This War. They’re at the Heart of It,” New York Times (November 15, 2023): https:// www.nytimes.com/2023/11/15/opinion/hostages-israel-war.html
Lauren Leatherby, “Gaza Civilians, Under Israeli Barrage, Are Being Killed at Historic Pace,” New York Times (November 26, 2023): https:// www.nytimes.com/2023/11/25/world/middleeast/israel-gaza-death-toll.html
“Netanyahu Outlines Five Goals of Counterattack on Hamas,” Foundation for Defense of Democracies (October 9, 2023): https:// www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/10/09/netanyahu-outlines-five-goals-of-counterattack-on-hamas/
Richard Nixon, RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon, two Volumes, the quote is in, Arnold Isaacs, “The ‘Christmas bombing’ of 1972 — and why that misremembered Vietnam War moment matters,” Salon (December 11, 2022): https:// www.salon.com/2022/12/11/the-christmas-bombing-of-1972--and-why-that-misremembered-vietnam-moment-matters/
Andrew Wallenstein, “AFTER SEEING ISRAEL’S GORY OCT. 7 HAMAS ATTACK FOOTAGE, I SAY YOU SHOULDN’T — YET,” Variety (Novemvariety.com/vip/bearing-witness-october-7th-massacre-israel-idf-hamas-gaza-footage-1235791123/ber 16, 2023): https://