The disastrous Hamas-Israel ceasefire deal has cast a pall over what should be a festive time. Donald Trump is about to take office as president again, but his supporters who realize how dangerous this deal really is are no longer in any mood to celebrate. It looks as if Trump has compelled Israel to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and this was so stunning, so unexpected, and so out of sync with Trump’s repeated affirmations of staunch support for the Jewish state that many have been speculating that there must be secret aspects of the deal, or that another shoe is soon going to drop. Whether or not those things are true, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has just announced that the whole thing may be off anyway.
The ceasefire is supposed to begin on Sunday morning, but Netanyahu said on Saturday: “We will be unable to move forward with the framework until we receive the list of the hostages who will be released, as was agreed. Israel will not tolerate violations of the agreement. Hamas is solely responsible.”
Of course it is. Hamas is responsible for the entire war, which it began by massacring 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023. Hamas has also never adhered to the terms of any other ceasefire or truce it has ever concluded with the Israelis, so why should this one be any different?
Bruce Hoffman of the Council on Foreign Relations observed: “One has to ask if Hamas isn’t deliberately sabotaging the deal.” Of the requirement to provide the names of the hostages who are going to be released, he added: “This is what they agreed to. It seemed the most basic of all the demands by the Israelis.”
So why the foot-dragging? In a disquieting column in the Times of Israel Wednesday, David K. Rees outlined fourteen ways in which Israel lost the war (and the lopsided ceasefire agreement just sealed the deal). Among them was the fact that the war “turned world opinion against Israel.” The deal also involved “the release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, many of whom have been sentenced to life terms” and will almost certainly attempt to murder more Israelis.
Another problem with the deal, according to Rees, was that “Hamas has proved that Israel is willing to give up huge amounts to get a small amount in return.” And “while much of Gaza has been destroyed, the world is about to provide huge sums in order to rebuild it. One can expect that a significant amount of these sums will indirectly wind up in Hamas’ coffers.”
Even worse, “Hamas will still control Gaza. UNRWA will remain as it has been.” And “the war has created a serious rift between Israel and the United States.”
Related: Hamas Celebrates Ceasefire Deal in Gaza, and With Good Reason
So why would Hamas even consider sabotaging such a sweetheart deal? For the same reason that Yasir Arafat walked away from two terrific deals that would have brought peace to the region two decades ago. Historian Hugh Fitzgerald explains:
In 2000, Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to make an extraordinarily generous territorial settlement as part of a peace proposal given to Arafat. The arch-terrorist and PLO leader did not even bother to answer; he simply walked out of the meeting, never to return. That treaty would have given the Palestinians a state of their own, which would have ultimately given included more than 92% of the West Bank, a compensatory percentage of Israeli territory, East Jerusalem, and all of Gaza. Arafat would not listen to any Israeli proposal unless it included the Palestinian “right of return,” which would have led to millions of “Palestinians” swamping Israel and destroying it as a Jewish state.
In 2008, an even more generous settlement was offered by Prime Minister Ehud Barak to the PA’s President Mahmoud Abbas, which would have given the Palestinian state 96% of the West Bank, plus an even larger amount of territory, consisting of 5.8% of Israel, that would become part of that new state. In addition, Olmert offered to give up control of the Old City, which would be administered by five states — Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United States. Like Arafat before him. Abbas refused to even discuss the proposal, and walked away.
Arafat walked away from those deals because the jihad imperative is maximalist. No Israel of any size can be allowed to exist. The Qur’an says, “Drive them out from where they drove you out” (2:191), and even though it’s a historical myth that the Israelis drove out the Palestinian Arabs (the Arab Higher Committee actually told the Arabs to vacate the area in 1948), this command is still in play, as the land was once ruled by Islamic law. Any land that was once Islamic belongs, according to Islamic theology, to Islam forever.
That means that Arafat couldn’t accept any deal that involved Israel continuing to exist, and Hamas can’t go along with an arrangement that involves their stopping fighting to destroy the Jewish state. Whether they violate the agreement by refusing to give the Israelis the names of the hostages to be released or whether they violate it in some other way, they will violate it. The jihad must continue.
