RSS
Why Israel had no choice but to make a ‘bargain with the devil’
(JTA) — In pressing for a deal that could see the release of 50 of the more than 200 hostages held in Gaza in return for a four-day pause in hostilities the release of 150 Palestinian prisoners, Israel’s National Unity Party Minister Benny Gantz described the return of the hostages as a “moral imperative and part of the resilience that enables us to win wars.”
But what if negotiating with Hamas, considered a terrorist group by Israel, creates a dangerous precedent and further encourages its enemies to view hostage-taking as a weapon? By putting its war on Hamas on a four-day hold, does Israel appear to be giving in to an enemy it has vowed to destroy? And by releasing three Palestinian prisoners for every hostage returned, does Israel risk allowing violent prisoners to go free?
These are the unbearable tensions Israeli and American negotiators faced in the leadup to the deal, announced Tuesday night. To understand the dilemmas and pressures Israel is facing, I spoke with law professor Robert Mnookin, director of the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard Law School and author of the 2010 book, “Bargaining with the Devil: When to Negotiate, When to Fight.” Mnookin advises governments and corporations on negotiating strategy and conflict resolution and has written about Israel’s controversial hostage swaps with Hamas and other adversaries.
He is also the author, in 2019, of “The Jewish American Paradox: Embracing Choice in a Changing World,” a book about Jewish peoplehood and identity.
We spoke Wednesday about the political pressure on Israel to strike a deal, how religious and national values play a role in hostage negotiations and why a “no-win” scenario is sometimes the best you can do.
The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Before we get into the details of this specific hostage exchange, I wonder if you could provide a theoretical framework for hostage negotiation, especially with an enemy deemed terrorists. What should any power consider before embarking on negotiations essentially with kidnappers?
One hard question, of course, is, are they likely to keep to the deal that you make with them? Kidnappers aren’t necessarily a reliable partner to a negotiation.
A second big issue is the question of precedent. What kind of precedent are they setting by being willing to negotiate? For many years, the United States government took the position that it would not negotiate with terrorists to try to release kidnap victims. And there was a lot of tension [between the government and victims’ families]. The stated policy was often informally violated by the U.S. government, that is, they sometimes did participate. And in fact, it turns out that European countries were negotiating with various — often Islamic — terrorist groups in the last decade, were paying money to get people released. The United States wasn’t and it changed its formal policy.
That they would pay ransom?
Not necessarily, but they no longer had an absolute policy that there should not be any contact between the government and terrorist groups with respect to kidnap victims.
You wrote an op-ed critical of the decision in 2011 by an earlier Netanyahu government to release about 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hamas in 2006 and held hostage in Gaza. What made you call that a “crazy deal” and what might be different about the current situation?
There were lots of things wrong with that deal. First, the price was absurdly high. Second, it set a terrible precedent. And third, as it turns out, that deal strengthened Hamas and weakened the Palestinian Authority, because the Israeli government was negotiating with Hamas, who made sure the Palestinian Authority would get no credit. And comparatively few of the Palestinian Authority’s prisoners were released. And finally, it turns out of course, that among those released are at least some who now are apparently leaders of Hamas.
On the other hand, obviously, I’m thrilled that Shalit was released.
Robert Mnookin directs the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard Law School. (Jon Chase/Harvard University News Office)
When you heard the terms of the deal Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, how did it strike you as someone who has an expertise in negotiations? Was there a winner? Was there a loser?
Well, listen, these kinds of negotiations often involve tragic choices. Who could not be very happy that women and children are being released? On the other hand, while we don’t really know the details of who’s being released by the Israeli government, I gather many of them are minors who participated in rather violent acts or very violent acts.
Should Israel worry that negotiating over hostages in this case is going to encourage its enemies to engage in more kidnapping?
They absolutely should.
Israel has a national ethos of returning its soldiers and protecting its citizens above all else — including by taking actions, like lopsided hostage swaps, that might endanger soldiers and civilians in the future. Do these sort of emotional goals — for the sake of national solidarity or morale, or even the religious imperative of pidyon shvuyim, or redeeming hostages — strike negotiation experts as irrational?
I don’t want to call it irrational because it may reflect and reinforce values that are really quite important. Israel has a tradition that no soldier would be left behind. Given that Israel has an army in which nearly all Jewish people participate, a truly citizens’ army, the Shalit deal was, for all its flaws, a valuable reinforcement of that ideology.
Israel is also a small country, and the degree of separation among its citizens is incredibly small. I imagine that any idea that it won’t negotiate with terrorists is impossible to maintain politically and morally when there are so many stories and they are so personal.
This is something I talked about in my oped many years ago, which is a very important psychological finding that people, in order to save identifiable individuals, are willing to take actions that are far more costly than actions that could save many more unspecified individuals. The classic example of this is when an individual is trapped in a coal mine: It becomes national news, and rescuers might spend millions of dollars to get them out — while the same government authorities are unwilling to spend anywhere near an equivalent amount on safety measures that would ultimately save many more people.
What we’ve seen in Israel, with so many victims, the political pressure is very, very substantial. You’ve seen these posters of all the individual kidnap victims. The families are trying to personalize it — appropriately, because it’s a good strategy. My wife last night was brought to tears with interviews of the family of one of the victims because their story was so sad. There’s this little girl, for example, who’s going to be 4 on her birthday, which is Friday. [Abigail Edan was kidnapped on Oct. 7; Hamas killed her parents, Roy and Smadar Edan; she is a U.S. citizen and President Joe Biden said he expects her to be released.]
Of course a government should be willing to work very hard to get her release. How can you feel they should not do so? These are very hard choices that governments have to face.
What did each side achieve in this deal?
What the Israelis achieved, of course, is that some fraction of the 200-plus hostages are being released and that there are going to be children and women among them. And the suspension of hostilities from Israel’s perspective is comparatively brief. As for Hamas, they’re getting credit for the release, they’re getting a rest in terms of hostilities and there’s going to be substantial humanitarian aid.
The other thing that I think is interesting about this arrangement, of course, in part goes to the reliability issue. They’re doing an arrangement where the hostages are going to be released partially each day, which is a way of reinforcing the ceasefire. Whereas if they were all released right in the beginning, Hamas would be taking the risks that the Israelis might immediately resume hostilities.
Do you accept the idea that a successful negotiation is one in which both sides are disappointed?
No. If the people are rational actors, it should create an outcome that each side views as superior to what their best alternative otherwise would be. Now, it is often the case that the negotiated deal is disappointing in comparison with a perfect world. But on the other hand, almost by definition, if you and I settle a terrible dispute, we wouldn’t have made a deal if we didn’t think it was superior to our expected alternative. And what’s often true is sometimes you and I could settle a conflict with an arrangement that makes us feel positive about doing business together in the future.
—
The post Why Israel had no choice but to make a ‘bargain with the devil’ appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
UK Muslim Groups Reject Interfaith Pact With Jewish Leaders Because Chief Rabbi Is a ‘Zionist’
The signing of the Drumlanrig Accords at Buckingham Palace. Photo: Screenshot
A coalition of Muslim organizations in the United Kingdom has rejected a recently announced Muslim-Jewish reconciliation agreement aimed at improving relations between the two communities, condemning the landmark pact over the involvement of British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, who they denounced as a “staunch Zionist.”
In a joint statement, more than 25 Muslim groups, including Friends of Al Aqsa and The Cordoba Foundation, expressed strong opposition to the Drumlanrig Accords over Mirvis’s support for Israel. They also argued that the agreement, which was drafted in January and signed last month, lacked legitimate representation as it was backed by “self-appointed” Muslim leaders who do not represent the will of the Muslim community.
The signatories “failed to consult widely with grassroot organizations supported by the Muslim community before they signed these accords with the chief rabbi, who is a staunch Zionist,” the statement said.
“Rabbi Mirvis has supported Israel’s war on the Palestinians in Gaza,” the coalition continued, before citing debunked casualty figures supplied by Hamas-controlled authorities. “We cannot in good faith acknowledge these accords when the chief rabbi has made public statements supporting Israel despite the horrific actions of the Israeli Occupation Forces.”
In January, representatives of 11 denominations from Judaism and Islam met at Drumlanrig Castle in Scotland to agree to a pact aimed at improving relations between the two faiths. The signatories said the accords were designed to unite the Jewish and Muslim communities in Britain to “help tackle both antisemitism and Islamophobia, as well as poverty and isolation,” while promoting mutual respect and solidarity.
Jewish and Muslim leaders formally signed the agreement last month and presented it to Britain’s King Charles III at Buckingham Palace in London.
“The Drumlanrig Accords represent a bold first step toward rebuilding a meaningful trust between Muslim and Jewish communities over the long term,” Mirvis said in a statement following the signing of the accords. “They do not gloss over our differences; they acknowledge them.”
“They also send out a powerful message that in times of division, when it is far easier to retreat into fear and suspicion, we are prepared to take the more challenging path to reconciliation,” he continued. “We do so not because it is easy, but because it is necessary.”
In their statement released earlier this week, Muslim leaders explained they would only accept and support the accords if the UK’s chief rabbi condemns the “genocide and apartheid being enacted against the Palestinian people,” welcoming a collective multi-faith movement against oppression.
“Until then, we wholly reject these accords made purportedly on behalf of the Muslim community,” the coalition said. “A central facet of Islam is the complete rejection of oppression. As a community, we do not shy away from rejecting oppression in all its forms against anyone.”
The statement did not acknowledge Hamas’s widely recognized military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations and direct attacks.
In Monday’s statement, the groups also argued that the Muslim leaders who signed the accords were “self-appointed” and do not represent the wider British Muslim community, but rather they only speak for a small minority.
“These self-appointed Muslims were fully aware that they only represent a small minority of the overall British Muslim population,” the statement read. “The majority of the British Muslim community do not even know who these individual Muslim ‘leaders’ are. Their actions and decisions were made independently without consulting the wider Muslim community.”
According to their statement, these Muslim groups would be “wholly supportive” of interfaith relations if carried out in good faith.
“We note the significant rise in anti-Muslim hatred within the Jewish community and support engagement on challenging hatred in all its forms,” the signatories said.
The signing of the accords came amid an ongoing surge in antisemitic crimes across the UK since the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel, amid the ensuing war in Gaza.
Last month, the Community Security Trust (CST), a nonprofit charity that advises Britain’s Jewish community on security matters, released data showing the UK experienced its second worst year ever for antisemitism in 2024, despite recording an 18 percent drop in antisemitic incidents from the previous year’s all-time high.
In one of the latest incidents, a visibly Jewish man in England was brutally attacked after a prayer service, leaving him fearing for his eyesight, with local police investigating the assault as a hate crime.
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists started the war in Gaza when they murdered 1,200 people and kidnapped 251 hostages during their invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.
In January, both sides reached a ceasefire and hostage-release deal brokered by Egypt and Qatar with the support of the United States.
The post UK Muslim Groups Reject Interfaith Pact With Jewish Leaders Because Chief Rabbi Is a ‘Zionist’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Legal Nonprofit Launches Civil Rights Blitz Against Campus Antisemitism in California
Illustrative: A pro-Hamas demonstrator uses a megaphone on the one-year anniversary of Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack, amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict, in New York City, US, Oct. 7, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Mike Segar
The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law has launched a legal blitz in California, announcing on Thursday that it filed three federal civil rights complaints against California State Polytechnic, Humboldt (Cal Poly), Scripps College, and the Etiwanda School District in San Bernardino County.
“While an increasing number of schools recognize that their Jewish students are being targeted both for their religious beliefs and due to their ancestral connection to Israel, and are taking necessary steps to address both classic and contemporary forms of antisemitism, some shamefully continue to turn a blind eye,” Brandeis Center founder and chairman Kenneth Marcus said in a statement announcing the actions. “The law and the federal government recognize Jews share a common faith and they are a people with a shared history and heritage rooted in the land of Israel.”
According to the Brandeis Center, the three complaints are being supported by several co-litigants — with Jewish on Campus (JOC) being a party to the Cal Poly complaint; the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and Arnold & Porter LLP to the Scripps College complaint; and StandWithUs and the ADL to the Etiwanda School District complaint.
Cal Poly is accused of allowing Jewish students to be subjected to “vicious antisemitism,” standing down while pro-Hamas activists doused them in fake blood and committed other acts of intimidation, such as antisemitic graffiti and hate speech. Rather than correcting the hostile environment, the Brandeis Center and JOC alleged, the university recommended that those being targeted hide any indicators of their Jewishness and even terminated their participation in a club fair as an alternative to disciplining a pro-Hamas student who physically harassed them at the event.
At Scripps College, in Claremont, California, a Jewish student was allegedly ordered to remove her Star of David and routinely taunted with antisemitic tropes accusing Jews of being “immoral,” rapacious, and exercising “control” over media. Living openly as a Jewish woman has become an unrelenting tribulation for this student, the Brandeis Center and Arnold & Peter added, noting that she has seen her social network collapse due to her attending Shabbat dinners and “studying Torah with the campus rabbi.” In addition to allegedly neglecting to respond to these indignities, Scripps has been accused of showing further disregard for the civil rights of Jewish students by helping pro-Hamas agitators evade accountability for behaviors such as vandalism. The situation, the groups said, has prompted many Jewish students to leave the country to participate in study abroad programs rather than remain on campus.
The Etiwanda school district case recounts the experience of a 12-year-old Jewish girl who was allegedly assaulted on school grounds — being beaten with a stick — told to “shut your Jewish ass up,” and teased with jokes about Hitler. According to the court filings, one student said such behavior would have never happened were she not Jewish. Despite receiving a slew of complaints about the discriminatory treatment, a substantial amount of which occurred in the classroom, school officials have allegedly eschewed punishing her tormentors.
The Algemeiner has reached out to Cal Poly, Scripps College, and the Etiwanda school district for comment and will update this story if they respond.
Cal Poly told the Lost Coast Outpost, a local media outlet, that it is “reviewing the federal complaint and will, of course, fully cooperate with the [US Department of Education’s] Office of Civil Rights in any investigation.” The school added, “Hatred or discrimination in any form, including antisemitism, is contrary to our core values. The university unequivocally condemns all acts of hatred, bigotry, and violence, and we are committed to keeping safe our students, staff, and faculty of all religions. We will continue to work together to foster a learning and working environment where we can all feel safe, included, and respected.”
According to leading voices behind the federal complaints, administrators at many educational institutions are not doing enough to combat anti-Jewish discrimination.
“Too many of our nation’s young minds are being corrupted by the disease of antisemitism. It is the duty of K-12 educators and administrators to provide the necessary education to inoculate them — not indoctrinate them,” StandWithUs chief executive officer and founder Roz Rothstein said in a statement. “As long as students continue to find themselves on the receiving end of anti-Jewish hate and bigotry from their peers or teachers, and their appeals to administration continue to fall on deaf ears, we will continue to show up and support them in holding their schools accountable.”
The ADL’s vice president of national litigation, James Pasch, added, “ADL and our partners will not sit idly by as Jewish students are attacked for their identity — from our college campuses to our K-12 schools, our educational institutions have an obligation to protect their Jewish students and ensure that all its students receive an education free of harassment and discrimination.”
The Brandeis Center has spearheaded litigation for dozens of complaints of antisemitism in recent years, taking on large, powerful institutions, as well as lesser-known ones, across the US. Recently, it achieved the pausing of the Santa Ana Unified School District’s (SAUSD) implementation of an ethnic studies curriculum that, according to the lawsuit, district leaders in California intentionally hid from the Jewish community to conceal its antisemitic content.
Just weeks prior, the Brandies Center negotiated the resolution of a lawsuit which accused Harvard University of violating the rights of Jewish students by failing to discipline a professor whom a third-party firm had deemed guilty of mistreating Jewish students.
The organization’s legal actions further its mission to combat antisemitism in educational institutions, Marcus noted in Thursday’s press release, saying, “Schools that continue to ignore either aspect of Jewish identity are becoming dangerous breeding grounds for escalating anti-Jewish bigotry, and they must be held accountable.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Legal Nonprofit Launches Civil Rights Blitz Against Campus Antisemitism in California first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Dismisses Trump Threat, Says Hostages Will Only Be Released With Lasting Ceasefire
US President Donald speaking in the Roosevelt Room at the White House in Washington, DC on March 3, 2025. Photo: Leah Millis via Reuters Connect
Hamas on Thursday dismissed US President Donald Trump’s latest threat against the Palestinian terrorist group, saying it will only release the remaining Israeli hostages in Gaza with a lasting ceasefire.
The “best path to free the remaining Israeli hostages” is through negotiations on a second phase of the ceasefire agreement, Hamas spokesman Abdel-Latif al-Qanoua said.
The first phase of the truce, which lasted 42 days, ended on Saturday. During that time, fighting stopped between Israel and Hamas as the former withdrew some forces from Gaza. Meanwhile, Hamas released 25 living Israeli hostages and the bodies of eight more in exchange for nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom were serving lengthy sentences for terrorist activity.
Only limited preparatory talks have been held so far regarding a second phase of the ceasefire, which could include a permanent truce, full Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza, and release of the remaining living hostages in exchange for more Palestinian prisoners. However, the future of the deal is in doubt, as both sides disagree on how to proceed.
Negotiations were further complicated by Trump, who on Wednesday posted a statement on his social media platform Truth Social in which he issued an ultimatum to Hamas.
“‘Shalom Hamas’ means Hello and Goodbye – You can choose,” the president’s post began. “Release all of the Hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you. Only sick and twisted people keep bodies, and you are sick and twisted!”
Trump added that he is “sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job,” and that “not a single Hamas member will be safe if you don’t do as I say.”
The US president then noted that he met earlier in the day with several former hostages who were released from Hamas captivity.
“I have just met with your former Hostages whose lives you have destroyed. This is your last warning! For the leadership, now is the time to leave Gaza, while you still have a chance,” Trump said
He also warned that Gazans could be killed if they assisted Hamas in detaining Israeli hostages. Several of the hostages freed from Gaza were held by families with connections to the Hamas terrorist group. These hostages reportedly experienced physical and psychological violence while being held in captivity.
“Also, to the People of Gaza: A beautiful Future awaits, but not if you hold Hostages. If you do, you are DEAD! Make a SMART decision. RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW, OR THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY LATER,” Trump wrote.
Beyond calling for the second phase of the ceasefire deal, Hamas also responded to Trump’s threat by arguing that it would embolden Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
“Such positions are what give the war criminal Netanyahu the strength and ability to continue his crimes,” Hamas spokesman Salama Maroof said on Thursday.
Another spokesman for the terrorist group, Hazem Qassem, reportedly added, “Trump’s threats complicate matters related to the ceasefire agreement and push the occupation’s [Israel’s] government to become more radical. If Trump cares about releasing the occupation’s hostages, he should pressure Netanyahu to begin negotiations for the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire agreement. We fear that the occupation will take advantage of Trump’s statements to intensify the Gaza siege and starvation policy against its residents.”
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists started the war in Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023, when they invaded, southern Israel, murdered 1,200 people, and kidnapped 251 hostages. Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the captives and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.
Fighting stopped when the ceasefire went into effect on Jan. 19.
Israel recently presented Hamas with a proposal for an extension of the ongoing Gaza ceasefire and hostage-release deal. The proposal would mandate that Hamas release half of the remaining Israeli hostages who were kidnapped into Gaza at the beginning of the extension. The rest of the hostages would be released at the end, if Hamas and Israel can agree on a permanent ceasefire deal. Israel would retain the right to restart the war in Gaza if negotiations are unsuccessful by the 42-day mark.
According to Jerusalem, the ceasefire extension proposal was the brainchild of US President Donald Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff.
However, Hamas has refused to extend the first phase of the ceasefire deal, leading Israel to announce that it would block humanitarian aid transfers into Gaza to pressure the terrorist group into accepting the ceasefire extension.
Hamas is believed to still have 24 living hostages taken in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack, including Israeli-American Edan Alexander. It is also holding the bodies of 34 others who were either killed in the initial attack or in captivity, as well as the remains of a soldier killed in the 2014 Israel-Hamas war.
Under Trump, the White House has prioritized the release of Israeli hostages during the opening weeks of the new administration. Last month, Trump vowed to let “hell break out” in Gaza if Hamas did not release the remaining hostages.
“As far as I’m concerned, if all of the hostages aren’t returned by Saturday at 12 o’clock … I would say, cancel it [the hostage deal] and all bets are off and let hell break out,” Trump said at the time,
The Trump administration has also started direct communications with Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, over the release of US hostages in Gaza.
“When it comes to the negotiations … the special envoy who’s engaged in those negotiations does have the authority to talk to anyone,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Wednesday. “Israel was consulted on this matter. Dialogue and talking to people around the world to do what’s in the best interest of the American people, is something that the president has proven, what he believes is good-faith effort to do what’s right for the American people.”
According to reports, US special envoy for hostage affairs Adam Boehler has been leading the discussions with Hamas in Doha, Qatar. The talks have mainly focused on securing the release of American hostages still in Hamas captivity. However, Hamas and US officials have also reportedly discussed brokering an agreement to release all remaining hostages in the enclave.
The post Hamas Dismisses Trump Threat, Says Hostages Will Only Be Released With Lasting Ceasefire first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login