Israel stands at a crossroads, facing decisions that will not only determine the fate of the hostages in Gaza but also shape the future of the Middle East. At stake is the delicate balance between securing the safe return of Israeli citizens and maintaining security as Hamas rebuilds.
The video of Guy Gilboa-Dalal and Evyatar David, hostages who were brought to the release on Saturday and then filmed watching their friends go home as they stayed behind, was a heartbreaking reminder of the dozens still awaiting freedom. Hamas’s motives are strategic. By retaining hostages, they hold a powerful insurance card against Israel, leveraging the hostages to restrain the IDF from resuming the intensity of its ground offensive.
Hamas fears that once all hostages are released, Israel will restart the war, even if assurances have been given to the contrary. This strategic calculation isn’t just about military tactics; it’s about maintaining political relevance and control within Gaza, projecting strength to their supporters, and asserting influence over the broader Palestinian cause.
In Israel, a majority of the public strongly favours continuing the deal to secure the hostages’ return. This is a matter of national ethos, rooted in a culture that values human life and prioritises the safe return of its citizens. But while the public’s emotional drive is clear, the strategic calculus is more complicated. The weekly hostage releases, choreographed by Hamas, clearly illustrate how the group remains far from defeated.
Meanwhile, the IDF Southern Command reports that Hamas is actively rebuilding its defences in Gaza, re-burying rocket launchers and setting up explosive devices in areas they anticipate the IDF might use if fighting resumes. Israel cannot allow this and cannot permit Hamas to grow into the threat that it was when it invaded 16 months ago. The October 7 attack was a brutal reminder of the consequences of underestimating an enemy. Israel’s security doctrine must address the long-term implications of allowing Hamas to regroup.
The key question, then, is what should come first – bringing the hostages home or confronting Hamas? This is not just a tactical dilemma but a moral one. How does a nation balance the imperative to save its citizens with the strategic need to ensure long-term security?
For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the dilemma is as much political as it is strategic. His government is navigating two significant challenges: the IDF draft law for the strictly Orthodox, which has sparked protests in Jerusalem, and the continuation of the hostage deal, which Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has threatened he would use to topple the coalition.
Netanyahu is seeking a middle path. He aims to extend the first stage of the deal, which allows for a gradual exchange of hostages for Palestinian prisoners, while maintaining a military presence in strategic parts of Gaza, such as the Philadelphi Corridor along the Egypt border. This approach avoids the complete withdrawal and end-of-war declaration required by the second stage – terms his coalition cannot accept. This strategy though is not without risk. It hinges on the assumption that Hamas will continue cooperating, something of a gamble. Achieving this will require US support. The Trump administration has backed the return of hostages but has yet to clarify if it would demand the second stage or support extending the first.
However, the political challenges don’t end there. Netanyahu also faces a legislative deadlock over the Charedi draft law.
The strictly Orthodox demand a blanket exemption, but this faces opposition within his coalition, including members of his own Likud Party. If no compromise is reached by March, failure to pass the state budget – which the Charedim will not support if there is not a draft law – could trigger early elections, a scenario Netanyahu wants to avoid.
This political calculation complicates Netanyahu’s decision-making. If he anticipates his coalition’s collapse over the draft law, he might prefer to fall on the more popular hostage deal rather than the contentious military exemption issue. Such a manoeuvre would allow him to preserve his political brand, portraying himself as a leader who prioritised human lives over political expediency.
In this high-stakes environment, Netanyahu’s choice is fraught. On one side are lives in Gaza waiting to be saved. On the other is his track record of often prioritising political survival. Whether Israel can find a path that reconciles its ethical obligations with its strategic imperatives remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that every decision made now will echo for generations. The stakes could not be higher.
