The bodies of six Israeli and American hostages held by Hamas were retrieved from a 65 foot deep tunnel in the Rafah area of Gaza and returned to Israel on Saturday. They are Ori Danino, Alex Lobanov, Hersh Goldberg-Polin, Almog Sarusi, Eden Yerushalmi, and Carmel Gat.

In previous cases where the IDF returned bodies, the victims had typically been deceased for some time, some even as far back as October 7. This weekend was different: Israel has confirmed that Hamas had executed all six of these hostages in recent days by means of a gunshot to the head.

This is deeply heartbreaking to the Israeli people and all people of conscience. For months, we’ve known these names and seen these hostages on posters in every corner of every city and town. We are all struck to the core as if we knew each hostage personally — as if they were our family.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized to one of the hostage’s families, a rarity for him, and in a separate statement asserted that “Anyone who murders hostages does not want a deal,” while adding that he is shocked to the depths of his soul, and that the blood of the hostages is on Hamas’ hands.

At the same time, a number of parents of the hostages as well as Israeli leaders and civilians are fiercely blaming the Israeli government in general, and Netanyahu in particular, for failing to bring our loved ones home sooner. Hundreds of thousands protested on Sunday evening in locations throughout the country with a particular focus on blaming the government and calling for an immediate ceasefire. Most of Israel’s unionized workers have gone on a symbolic one day strike beginning Monday morning.

It is almost impossible to fully comprehend the grief and anger of the families who have lost loved ones after 11 months of emotional torture. But it is also critical at this tragic moment that we perform a reality check.

The anti-government position held by many Israelis presumes that there was some kind of deal on the table that would have brought all the hostages home safely, if only “Bibi” and his government would have simply accepted it. This is, in fact, not the case: there is not, and there never has been, any such offer.

At no point following last November’s temporary ceasefire has Hamas accepted a proposal that would return anything more than a small portion of the hostages at any given time. For example the “three stage” deal proposed by the United States last February (which Hamas in any case rejected) would have brought home only a small number of hostages in the first stage. As Hamas habitually violates ceasefire agreements, Israeli experts widely believe that multi-stage deals will most likely not proceed to completion, leaving large numbers of hostages in captivity indefinitely.

Having rejected the American proposal last February, Hamas went on to reject a version of its own three-stage proposal in March. Just two weeks ago, the United States announced that Israel had accepted America’s latest so-called “Bridging Proposal,” and that the world was now waiting on Hamas, which subsequently rejected the deal and then boycotted further negotiations in Cairo. This is only the latest of dozens of Hamas rejections.

A common refrain by a large, vocal minority of Israelis has been that Israel’s top priority must be the return of the hostages, and not dismantling Hamas. This logic is based on two flawed assumptions: that there is a deal on the table that would bring back all the hostages (there is not) and that the IDF can simply return to fighting in Gaza at any time in the future, even if doing so means violating the terms of a binding agreement.

Yet Hamas is quite sophisticated with respect to this issue: throughout the ceasefire talks, a key Hamas demand has been not only that the terror organization remain in power in Gaza, but also that international guarantees be put in place to tie the IDF’s hands against further military action.

Numerous UN resolutions and international court actions, as well as delays and even “soft embargoes” of needed military supplies by the US and other allies, send a clear message to Israel: that re-entering Gaza in violation of an agreement would be difficult or even impossible.

This pressure also sends a message to Hamas: that given time, Israel’s allies might not stand firm, thus encouraging Hamas to harden its bargaining position and play for additional time.

Given the above realities, one can still hold a reasonable, and even passionate disagreement as to what price Israel should pay to return the hostages alive, whether Hamas should be removed from power, or how far the IDF should go to secure Gaza against future attacks.

Yet to accuse the Israeli government or its leadership of murder, does not make logical sense. One might have placed some portion of the responsibility on the Israeli government if there was a deal on the table that Israel should have, or even could have, accepted. Yet the painful truth is that there was never any such option available.

The decision to murder six Israeli hostages was made completely by Hamas: not by Israel, its leaders or its people. The question now is whether Hamas will see these murders as a strategic win that bears repeating, or as a colossal blunder to be avoided in the future.

If Hamas sees that executing hostages increases pressure on Israel, both internally and externally, then the terror organization might conclude that doing so provides a strategic advantage.

Hamas might even conclude that such executions can bring the terror group closer to its immediate goal of retaining power in Gaza, as well as its long term goal of mounting further October 7 style massacres.

Despite being one of the most prominent voices pressuring Israel to make a ceasefire deal, Vice President Kamala Harris said in her statement yesterday that Hamas must be “eliminated” and cannot be allowed to remain in power in Gaza; but that is what Hamas has been insisting on, and has long been a significant sticking point in negotiations.

Many Israelis agree: the current protests are, at their core, an expression of deep emotional connections, and a symbol of how Israeli families feel one another’s pain. Yet actual opinions in Israel are more nuanced: even though Israelis nearly unanimously support a deal that would end the war and return the hostages, only 49% would support a deal that involves the IDF leaving the critical Philadelphi corridor which gives Hamas access to Egypt, with 32% opposed, and 19% uncertain.

It is impossible to know how any of us might feel if our own family members were held captive in Gaza: we might be willing to sacrifice anything and everything to bring them home. Yet there are other families in Israel as well, including parents who are concerned for the safety of their children in a possible future massacre, should Israel make the wrong decisions at this critical time.

The deaths of Ori, Alex, Hersh, Almog, Eden, and Carmel are beyond heartbreaking, and today Israelis feel that pain as if it were personal to each and every one of us; but nine million more Israelis will face future kidnappings or Oct.7-like massacres if Hamas is not properly deterred and prevented from committing such atrocities.

Today Israelis are expressing pain and anger toward those we trusted to protect us. Yet we are also aware of a fundamental truth: that Hamas murdered civilians in cold blood, while international negotiations were ongoing to save them — and that’s a message the world needs to hear.

Netanyahu and his government are fair subject for criticism — to do so is the imperative of any free democracy. But even the most passionate disagreements demand a basis in factual reality: the supposed deal for which some Israelis advocate never actually existed. In truth, Israel’s current reality is as impossible as it is heartbreaking.

Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.

The post Could Israeli Disunity Lead to More Hamas Executions? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.