What They're Saying in Israel About Hamas and the Delicate Ceasefire
Inside Hamas' hostage crisis tactics, Israel's strategic response, and the geopolitical implications of U.S. President Donald Trump's ultimatum.
Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.
You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.
The ongoing hostage crisis engineered by Hamas is yet another manifestation of its strategy of psychological warfare and manipulation.
For Hamas, this is not just about securing short-term tactical advantages; it is about waging a broader ideological and military battle in which every hostage, every ceasefire, and every delay is a calculated move in a larger game. In the face of this sustained aggression, Israel must remain resolute, refusing to allow Hamas to dictate the terms of any deal while maintaining its commitment to bringing hostages home.
The latest crisis, triggered by Hamas’ sudden announcement that it would postpone the next scheduled release of hostages, is a textbook example of its extortion tactics. Hamas has not outright rejected the deal but instead introduced a temporary delay, creating just enough instability to pressure Israel and international mediators into offering concessions.
By issuing the announcement several days before the deadline, Hamas ensured that there would be ample time for diplomatic actors — including the United States and Qatar — to intervene and pressure Israel into engaging in further negotiations.
The terrorist organization’s delaying tactics, combined with its insistence that Israel is violating agreements, are part of a broader deception campaign aimed at shifting blame.
While Hamas claims that it remains committed to the ceasefire agreement, it simultaneously uses crises to extract further benefits while stoking internal divisions within Israel. The key to countering this strategy is for Israel to demonstrate strength and strategic patience, refusing to reward Hamas’ manipulations while maintaining its military readiness.
One of the most telling aspects of Hamas’ announcement is its internal division between the Gaza-based leadership and its external representatives. The decision to delay the hostage release was announced by the military wing’s spokesperson, a move that appears to have been orchestrated by Muhammad Sinwar, the head of Hamas in Gaza (and brother of slain Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar).
Meanwhile, Hamas’ foreign political leadership, which is responsible for engaging with mediators, has remained conspicuously silent. This suggests either internal disagreement or a deliberate strategy in which the military wing escalates tensions while the political wing maintains plausible deniability.
Hamas’ reliance on psychological warfare is another crucial element of its strategy. It is fully aware of the emotional toll that hostage crises take on Israeli society, and it actively exploits this dynamic.
The release of pale, malnourished captives — forced to participate in Hamas propaganda spectacles before being handed over — is not an accident. It is a calculated move to maximize public pressure on the Israeli government while bolstering Hamas’ standing among its supporters.
Additionally, Hamas has been leveraging humanitarian aid as another bargaining chip. It repeatedly accuses Israel of failing to uphold its commitments regarding the entry of aid, even though Israel has consistently ensured the transfer of humanitarian supplies.
The real issue lies in Hamas’ control over the distribution of aid within Gaza. Many of these supplies are diverted to Hamas operatives rather than reaching civilians. This deliberate mismanagement creates the illusion of a humanitarian crisis, which Hamas then weaponizes to turn international opinion against Israel.
A critical turning point in this crisis was U.S. President Donald Trump’s public ultimatum to Hamas: release all hostages by Saturday at noon, or face consequences. This move was significant not only because of its implications for U.S. foreign policy but also because it created a new political reality within Israel.
Trump’s assessment that Hamas would likely fail to meet the deadline was blunt. "Personally, I don’t think they will meet the deadline, I think they want to play it tough," he stated. Referring to Hamas as “thugs” who are ultimately weak when confronted with strength, Trump made it clear that the United States would not tolerate endless delays.
This ultimatum placed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a delicate position. While Netanyahu had already been preparing to reinforce military forces near Gaza, Trump’s hardline stance effectively outflanked him from the right. This intensified domestic pressure from figures like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who immediately seized on Trump’s words to demand a harsher response.
The mixed messaging from Netanyahu’s government in the hours following Trump’s statement revealed the political complexities at play. While initial government sources confirmed Israel’s full alignment with Trump’s position, subsequent statements softened the stance, suggesting that Israel was still leaving room for negotiations.
This balancing act reflects Netanyahu’s strategic calculation: While he recognizes the importance of maintaining U.S. support, he is also wary of rushing into a broader military operation without carefully weighing the consequences.
The Israeli government is now at a crossroads. If Hamas fails to meet the deadline, there is growing momentum within Israel to resume full-scale military operations in Gaza. This scenario is in line with Trump’s position, as well as the demands of Israel’s Right-wing ministers.
However, Netanyahu’s government must also consider the broader geopolitical implications. A return to intense fighting would likely draw international criticism and could complicate Israel’s strategic relations with Egypt and other regional actors involved in mediation efforts. At the same time, failing to act decisively could embolden Hamas, reinforcing the perception that it can manipulate negotiations at will.
Despite these challenges, Israel still holds significant leverage over Hamas. If the terrorist group continues to violate agreements, Israel has several options to apply pressure:
Halting the Release of Palestinian Prisoners – If Hamas refuses to release hostages, Israel must immediately suspend the release of Palestinian prisoners as a countermeasure.
Restricting Humanitarian Aid – While ensuring that basic aid reaches civilians, Israel must prevent Hamas from exploiting supplies for military purposes.
Military Readiness – If Hamas escalates its provocations, Israel must be prepared to respond decisively, targeting key Hamas infrastructure.
Diplomatic Pressure on Mediators – Israel must work closely with the U.S. and its allies to ensure that Hamas is held accountable for its actions.
As discussions around Phase II of the hostage deal unfold, Israel must maintain clear red lines:
The release of all remaining hostages, without exception
The dismantling of Hamas’ military capabilities
The removal of Hamas’ leadership from Gaza
Anything less would allow Hamas to regroup and continue its campaign of terror. These conditions are not just strategic necessities—they are moral imperatives. Hamas must not be allowed to emerge from this crisis with enhanced legitimacy or the ability to repeat its tactics in the future.
The ongoing hostage crisis is not just a diplomatic challenge; it is a test of Israel’s resilience, strategic foresight, and moral clarity. Hamas’ tactics of delay, deception, and psychological warfare are designed to weaken Israeli resolve. However, Israel must remain steadfast.
The international community must also recognize the fundamental reality: Hamas is a terrorist organization that does not seek peace. Every concession made to Hamas prolongs its rule, empowers its leaders, and increases the likelihood of future conflicts. The world cannot continue treating Hamas as a legitimate negotiating partner. It must be confronted as the terrorist entity that it is.
For Israel, the path forward is clear. The nation must stand firm against Hamas’ blackmail, ensuring that the return of hostages is not achieved at the expense of long-term security. By maintaining a strong, principled stance, Israel can not only secure the safe return of its citizens but also deal a decisive blow to Hamas’ ability to use hostage-taking as a weapon of war.
Ultimately, this is about more than one negotiation; it is about breaking the cycle of terrorism. Israel cannot afford to be manipulated, and neither can the world. The time has come to expose Hamas’ true intentions, hold it accountable for its crimes, and ensure that Israel’s security remains non-negotiable.
If Hamas refuses to release the hostages by the deadline, Israel must act decisively. The era of endless appeasement must end.
It's never going to make it to Phase Two, I've said that from the beginning. And Egypt and Jordan will take in some Gazans. The deal was struck as a last-ditch effort to get out some hostages and buy time to finalize the New Middle East plan and time is up. And Israel can't be worried about what the International Community says; it will never ever be on the side of Israel, even when they see the people of Iran and Lebanon cheering in the street and thanking Israel for liberating them; even when Israel saves the world from Iran getting the nuclear bomb; even when tons of evidence of how morally Israel fought this war against terrorists; even when all the money flowing to the United Nations is revealed (and not just the UN); even when the New ME is thriving and how quickly it blossoms into a region of peace, prosperity and coexistence, protected by one of the strongest militarizes in the world (Israel). No, they'll keep hating Jews. Time is up. It's "go time."
Egypt’s commitment to the Camp David Accords is directly proportional to the amount of bribes it receives from the US treasury.
They love that word, “proportional”. If the bribes stopped, and Egypt felt it no longer was compelled by its peace treaty with Israel, perhaps Egypt could then lose the whole of Sinai and that canal going forward as a proportional response.