The U.S. has been too weak in seeking a hostage deal. Could Trump really change things?
Hamas, Israel and the U.S. are all to blame for the fact that the remaining hostages have spent nearly 500 days in captivity
A relative of Liri Albag, an Israeli hostage taken captive by Palestinian militants to the Gaza Strip during the Oct. 7 attack, demonstrates with other family members in Tel Aviv on Jan. 4. Photo by Jack Guez / AFP / Getty Images
By the time Donald Trump is sworn in as president later this month, the Israeli hostages trapped in Hamas’ tunnel network beneath Gaza will have endured nearly 500 days of captivity. It’s an unimaginable horror — made even more devastating by a Hamas propaganda video, released over the weekend, featuring 19-year-old Liri Albag, snatched from a military base by terrorists on Oct. 7, 2023.
Trump has repeatedly declared, including on Monday, that if Israel’s remaining 100-some hostages — more than 30 of whom are believed dead — are not released by the time he enters the White House on Jan. 20, there will be “hell to pay” by Hamas. With yet another round of negotiations commencing this weekend in Qatar, hopes have been raised anew that captives like Albag will finally be returned to their families. But even aided by Trump’s warnings, ending Israel’s hostage ordeal will require a level of sincerity and seriousness that’s been missing from all sides — Hamas, Israel and the United States.
To be clear, the biggest obstacle to a hostage deal remains Hamas. Lacking both the authority and accountability of a formal state — and regularly “martyring” their own citizens as human shields — the terrorist group has always had little incentive to make any ceasefire or hostage release happen.
True, the fact that Hamas freed 100 or so hostages as part of a temporary ceasefire deal in late November 2023 suggests that the group knows how to deal in diplomacy when required. But never forget, as Hamas certainly hasn’t: More than 1,000 Israeli-held prisoners were traded for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in a 2011 deal that saw Shalit released after five years of captivity in Gaza. Hamas knows that its leverage never required it to keep the hundreds of Israelis and foreign nationals it kidnapped on Oct. 7 in captivity. The “mere” dozens still remaining continue to serve the terror organisation’s craven agenda of conflict and chaos just fine; so long as they hold even one hostage, they hold all the cards they need to.
Hamas’ reticence and recalcitrance — which have outrageously been rebranded as victimhood by some American progressives — have only been enhanced by the ways in which President Joe Biden’s administration has hamstrung Israel’s military efforts.
The current White House’s shameful efforts to appease Arab voters during last year’s election neither secured Vice President Kamala Harris the presidency nor delivered a ceasefire. In fact, noted Secretary of State Anthony Blinken in a recent New York Times “exit interview,” it actually made negotiations worse.
“Whenever there has been public daylight between the United States and Israel and the perception that pressure was growing on Israel,” said Blinken, “Hamas has pulled back from agreeing to a ceasefire and the release of hostages.”
This is why Trump’s arrival — and public demand for a hostage resolution — is so crucial. He is unlikely to allow such daylight, and likely to amp up public pressure on Hamas. Still, from his perches in the Oval Office and Mar-a-Lago, what exactly can Trump achieve on behalf of the Israelis trapped dozens of meters under the Gazan sand?
His prospects may seem dim. As Hamas continues to brutalize and sacrifice its own people, it has shown scant interest in appeasing global political pressure to put its citizens’ best interests first. But that’s because there has never really been any such pressure put on Hamas. As Blinken himself said in The Times, “for all of the understandable criticism of the way Israel has conducted itself in Gaza, you hear virtually nothing from anyone since Oct. 7 about Hamas.”
Trump could quickly embolden that chorus. He could do so by removing the constraints the Biden-Harris administration has tried to place on Israel when it comes to tactics and weapons of war; or by throwing down the gauntlet and declaring that Iran, Hamas’ chief benefactor, is directly responsible for the hostages’ fate — and that their weapons (both conventional and nuclear) are legitimate targets for Israeli reprisal.
Iran, of course, would put up a good fight — but one severely weakened by Israel’s autumn bombing campaigns, which debilitated Iranian proxies in Lebanon and Syria, in addition to striking its own soil.
Trump could also target Hamas’ other chief patron, Qatar, by freezing the billions it has invested in the U.S. and banning any future cash infusions.
The timing is certainly right. Qatar is competing heavily against its Gulf rival Saudi Arabia to dominate crucial artificial intelligence funding. With the biggest AI prizes in America, removing Doha from the playing field just as Riyadh is poised to possibly normalize relations with Jerusalem would be a slight that Qatar might be extremely unwilling to weather. Oh, and Trump could demand that American universities immediately divest themselves of the nearly $5 billion they’ve received from Qatar over the past two decades, signalling to Doha that their unregulated influence on U.S. culture is in jeopardy.
Trump could also cut funding to the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, and even the United Nations, all of whom have been to some extent complicit in propping up Hamas rule.
As for Israel, during a pair of visits to Tel Aviv last year, I found a consensus belief among nearly everyone I spoke with — across a wide swath of political allegiances — that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is extending the Gaza war to retain his hold on power. Considering the myriad corruption cases he’s facing, not to mention the prospect of a devastating probe into the security failures that allowed the devastation of Oct. 7, this is not entirely off base. But with nearly every poll suggesting Netanyahu would easily win re-election, the prime minister doesn’t necessarily need the war to sustain his popularity.
Instead, doing a deal — any deal — to repatriate his citizens would serve Netanyahu. Nearly 80% of Israelis supported the exchange of those 1,000-odd Palestinian prisoners for Shalit back in 2011, and similar numbers are ready for Netanyahu to maneuver right now with equal magnanimity. Israelis, by and large, want their countrymen back, for whatever price required.
That is why Netanyahu’s rejection of a Hamas offer last week felt like a mistake — at least for him.
The deal would have seen 22 live and 12 deceased hostages returned to Israel, in return for Israel agreeing to Hamas’ reported demand that the deal include “terms for an end to the war.” Acceding to such terms would have been painful for Israel — especially as it would reduce any leverage the country has to work toward the release of all the hostages — but it might have been Netanyahu’s most effective political PR tool. Plus, any Hamas waffling post-facto would have finally confirmed what so many have long believed — that it is Hamas, not Israel, that is the real obstacle to the hostages’ release.
With word trickling out of Doha that a viable hostage deal may finally be on the horizon, this is the moment to bring Liri Albag and her fellow captives home by any means necessary. Israel and Hamas have a mere two weeks to negotiate before Trump assumes office. They would be wise to get this deal done in that time frame — in their own region, on their own terms and, most crucially, for their own people.
A message from our Publisher & CEO Rachel Fishman Feddersen
I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism so that we can be prepared for whatever news 2025 brings.
At a time when other newsrooms are closing or cutting back, the Forward has removed its paywall and invested additional resources to report on the ground from Israel and around the U.S. on the impact of the war, rising antisemitism and polarized discourse.
Readers like you make it all possible. Support our work by becoming a Forward Member and connect with our journalism and your community.
— Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO
