At What Price?

The irony is that Trump’s threat, despite being understood as being directed at Hamas, may have created more difficulties for Sara’s husband’s government than for Hamas.

That tweet itself was typical Trump bombast, unaccompanied by any indication of what Trump planned to do if his demands were not met. Trump sought to reprise Iran’s release of 53 American hostages held in captivity for more than a year on the very day President Ronald Reagan entered office on January 20, 1981. The difference, however, is that Iran was a large nation, with a wide variety of assets, and highly vulnerable to an American attack.

But with what could Trump threaten Hamas? That he would give Israel a green light to lay waste to Gaza? Not likely, because Israel would never do that. That Israel would be allowed to cut off electricity and end all aid deliveries to Gaza? Again, while Einat Wilf may be right that so-called “humanitarian aid” should have been called by its proper name from October 8 onward, “supplying the enemy in a time of warfare and while they hold hostages,” Israel has normalized the provision of aid for so long that it could no longer be cut off.

Perhaps pressure on Hamas could be brought via Qatar, its principal financial backer, and maybe it was. In order to secure the ceasefire deal signed last Friday, which was substantially the same as Israel offered as long ago as last May, Hamas had to give up on its demand that Israel immediately withdraw entirely from Gaza, including from the crucial Philadelphi Corridor, through which much of Hamas’s weaponry is smuggled, and its demand for a permanent end to the war with Hamas still in power in Gaza. And while Gazan refugees will be allowed to return to their homes in northern Gaza, that return will not be unrestricted, in order to prevent the smuggling of arms back to the north.