While It’s Heartening to Welcome Israeli Hostages Back, a Deal That Sustains Hamas Is Unwise

The recent ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas is intended as a preliminary measure, but the future remains uncertain, along with the undisclosed assurances agreed upon behind closed doors.

It’s conceivable that President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu have aligned on this strategy as a tactical precursor to significant reforms that could reshape the Middle East landscape.

Moreover, the prospect of numerous Israelis, including young children, returning home after enduring more than a year of turmoil is likely to ease even the most staunchly hawkish concerns.

Nonetheless, it is difficult to view this agreement as anything less than a complete disgrace — and a significant embarrassment for the United States.

The first and most alarming aspect is that Hamas continues to hold power. Although they are significantly weakened and face a heightened Israeli military presence in Gaza, they can still claim a substantial victory.

As the saying goes, a terrorist organization secures its success as long as it avoids defeat, and compelling the Israelis to halt military actions, free terrorists, and yield to numerous demands in exchange for their remaining hostages stands as a considerable win for Hamas.

This isn’t just a symbolic victory; it sets a troubling precedent as Mahmoud Abbas, the aging and corrupt head of the Palestinian Authority, is now 89 and in declining health.

A deal that fortifies Hamas’s position likely ensures that upon Abbas’s passing, the group will be poised to take over leadership in the West Bank, thereby expanding its power and influence.

Equally concerning is the implication this deal holds for the political dynamics in Washington, D.C.

Why would President-elect Trump, who previously asserted there would be “hell to pay” if hostages weren’t freed before he took office, support an agreement that mirrors the terms previously pushed, unsuccessfully, by the Biden administration with minimal modifications?

Hearing Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy, commend Qatar — one of Hamas’s main financial backers and facilitators — as “doing God’s work” raises concerns for anyone optimistic about the incoming administration’s strategy for the region.

Deciphering what might lead Trump to endorse such a fundamentally flawed agreement, which does not secure the simultaneous return of all hostages and grants Hamas substantial leverage moving forward, is challenging.

Was the president-elect misled and lulled into acquiescence by the so-called “Deep State” in Washington? Or was he influenced by vested interests in his circle into making hasty, ill-advised choices?

We may never know, and it speaks volumes about the deal’s glaring flaws that Trump’s rapid and enthusiastic backing of this problematic arrangement has sparked numerous conspiracy theories.

This is unfortunate. During his first term, Trump judiciously and bravely challenged the outdated doctrines of American foreign policy elites.

He relocated the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, demonstrating that no catastrophic fallout resulted.

Additionally, he facilitated the Abraham Accords, showcasing that Israel could establish peace agreements with Arab nations before addressing its conflict with the Palestinians.

The unimaginable atrocities of October 7, 2023, should have prompted a significant reevaluation of U.S. policy in the region, one that ceases to tolerate terrorism and its sponsors.

Instead, we are presented with yet another agreement that signals a lack of determination and rewards terrorists for their appalling actions.

Let’s hope the hostages are released safely and swiftly, but we should also hope that, once in office, the Trump administration reevaluates its stance and proposes a more ambitious vision for American leadership.

Liel Leibovitz is the editor at large for Tablet and a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.