Photo courtesy of India Today
Hamas has agreed to release only 22 of 34 hostages demanded by Israel. The world should not be tolerating this.
The October 7th attack should never have happened, no hostages should have been taken, and Hamas has had 15 months to release them but has stubbornly refused, all while crying victim.
President Trump remains unfazed by Hamas’s attempts to use the hostages as bargaining chips to dictate terms.
In his January 1st speech, he reminded the audience that Hamas killed 45 Americans on October 7th, and abducted 12 others.
He effectively gave Hamas until his inauguration on January 20th to release all of the hostages.
Hamas supporters on Twitter falsely claim that Israel doesn’t want the hostages, citing an alleged rejection of a hostage release on October 8th.
That so-called offer was tied to an immediate ceasefire—a ploy for Hamas to attack Israel and then escape any consequences.
Since then, over 45,000 Gazans have died—deaths that could have been avoided if Hamas hadn’t committed the attack, hadn’t taken hostages, or had released them and surrendered at any point.
Hamas has refused Israel’s demands to release all of the hostages and 12 dead bodies, instead conditioning their release on Israel agreeing to end the war.
This is the same Hamas that, just months ago, was confident of defeating Israel, chanting slogans like “from the river to the sea.”
Unsurprisingly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly stated that fighting will resume after any hostage release.
On January 1st alone, Israel reportedly killed over 60 Gazans. If Hamas believes that holding hostages is somehow keeping Israel in check, that strategy does not appear to be working.
By releasing the hostages, Hamas could at least attempt to claim some moral high ground.
However, by continuing to hold the hostages and refusing to allow families to retrieve the bodies of the deceased, they expose themselves to ongoing criticism and a further erosion of sympathy.
As tough as Netanyahu has been on Hamas, concerns remain that Israel has not articulated a clear post-war plan for managing Gaza while preventing a resurgence of Hamas.
Agreeing to any negotiated solution risks a future conflict, as Hamas could regroup and rearm.
In contrast, fully defeating Hamas would likely preserve peace for a much longer period, reducing the chances of renewed hostilities.
Hamas is unlikely to surrender unless its leadership perceives imminent annihilation.
Such a scenario would likely require significant international coordination involving Arab states, the Palestinian Authority, and influential global actors.
Advocates of this strategy would frame it as a way to minimize Palestinian suffering and prevent further destruction in Gaza.
However, even if Hamas were to agree to lay down its arms, it would likely claim its actions were meant to preserve cohesion for future resistance, complicating the narrative of surrender.
Israel might consider pursuing Hamas’ surrender as an alternative to prolonged military operations, especially given the growing political and international pressures for a ceasefire.
Achieving this outcome would require addressing numerous logistical and political challenges, including the treatment of Hamas leaders, the demilitarization of Gaza, and the prevention of Hamas’ resurgence under a new guise.
A post-surrender scenario would also necessitate a robust plan for governance, reconstruction, and security in Gaza to avoid creating a power vacuum. While difficult, this approach could provide a pathway to lasting stability.
A surrender agreement for Hamas would involve addressing complex issues, such as the fate of its leaders and rank-and-file members.
Decisions would need to be made about whether leaders are arrested, exiled, or rehabilitated, and where exiles would be sent.
The process of “de-Hamasification” would extend to Gaza’s civilian and activist networks, ensuring a meaningful demilitarization plan to collect and destroy weapons and prevent future rearmament.
The terms would also need to reconcile the roles of related groups like Palestinian Islamic Jihad, ensuring no gaps are left in Gaza’s transition to a post-Hamas regime.
Additionally, such an agreement would require clear mechanisms to address Hamas’ external leadership, including potential actions by host countries like Qatar to enforce surrender terms.
Israeli commitments would also play a role, particularly regarding how it plans to pursue justice for the October 7 attacks and manage Gaza post-surrender.
Successfully implementing this plan could mitigate the need for a prolonged Israeli military presence, allowing for withdrawal behind a secure buffer zone and reducing future threats.
Not that Netanyahu is likely to entertain negotiations, but any potential surrender agreement would have to be tied to the release of all hostages.
Whether or not Hamas believes releasing the hostages would improve their position with Netanyahu, they should heed President Trump’s warnings, as he has explicitly put the terrorist organization on notice.
President Trump has issued strong warnings to Hamas regarding the release of hostages held in Gaza, emphasizing that there will be severe consequences if they are not freed before his inauguration on January 20, 2025.
Trump, who has repeatedly criticized the Biden administration for its handling of hostage negotiations, vowed that Hamas would face unprecedented retaliation should the hostages remain captive. He specifically referred to the atrocities committed by Hamas.
As the situation intensifies, approximately 100 hostages, including seven Americans, remain in Gaza. Trump’s assertive stance underscores his commitment to prioritizing the release of hostages upon assuming office, marking a stark contrast with current policies.
With just over two weeks remaining until his inauguration, it will be interesting to see how Hamas responds to the mounting pressure from a soon-to-be strong and decisive U.S. president.
The post Hamas Defies Hostage Release Demands: Trump Issues Stern Warning appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.