As the Washington Post and other sources report, the U.S. has charged six Hamas officials with criminal counts of terrorism connected with the October 7 attack on Israel:
U.S. officials unsealed charges Tuesday against senior Hamas leaders, accusing them of conspiring to provide material support to a terrorist organization, conspiring to murder Americans and conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction.
The criminal complaint against Hamas leader Yehiya Sinwar and others was made public as U.S. diplomats are preparing to present Israel and Hamas with a final hostage-release and cease-fire proposal, potentially as soon as this week.
Bizarrely, at least three of these officials are dead. Another, Yahya Sinwar, the military head of Hamas, is scuttling around the tunnels of Gaza and is, at present, beyond reach. But at least one person, the political head of Hamas, and who lives in Doha, Qatar, is within the reach of U.S. courts. Here’s the list of those indicted, taken from the Times of Israel.Notes are mine except for those in quotes.
Yahya Sinwar, the military head of Hamas. Scuttling around the tunnels under Gaza. Sinwar served 22 years in an Israeli prison for terrorism until he was released in a prisoner swap and went on to plan the October 7 massacre (remember that when you start approving of such swaps to get the hostages back). One of the ironic things about Sinwar is that Israeli doctors saved his life by removing a malignant brain tumor when he was in prison, and he not only didn’t give up his hatred of Israel and Jews, but the nephew of the main doctor who saved him was killed in the October 7 massacre.
Ismail Haniyeh, former political head of Hamas who lived in Qatar but was assassinated (almost surely by Israel) by a bomb planted in his room during a visit to Tehran last July.
Marwan Issa, “the once-deputy leader of Hamas’s armed wing in Gaza, who was killed by Israel in March.”
Khaled Mashaal, “a Haniyeh deputy based in Doha and a former [political] leader of the group.” Now that Haniyeh is dead, Sinwar has taken over political and military control of Hamas, but Mashaal is playing a very important role in the group, not to mention all the money that Hamas has in the hands of its members in Qatar. Mashaal recently called for a return of Palestinians to conducting suicide attacks on Israelis.
Muhammad Deif, the longtime Hamas military wing chief, who Israel killed in July. Wikipedia says it’s not sure he’s dead, though was crippled after several assassination attempts, but the IDF says it’s sure he’s dead, and on matters like this I trust the IDF more than Wikipedia.
Ali Baraka, “the Beirut-based head of Hamas’s external relations.”
Now I don’t know what the point of indicting three dead people is; if anything, it’s a purely symbolic gesture. The most likely explanation is that the indictment was issued in February and was just unsealed, and the three dead thugs were still alive in February.
But anybody indicted who is still alive and resides in Qatar can be subject to extradition, and that means Mashaal. The U.S. should ask for his extradition immediately, though given who’s in charge of America now, I doubt this will happen.
Which brings us to the Gaza “peace plan”. The U.S. is saying that it’s about to float a “take-it-or-leave-it” peace deal for Gaza, and although the details are hazy, it seems to involve a time-limited ceasefire in hopes of a permanent one, a swap of some of the living and dead hostages (not all at once) for a pile of live Palestinians imprisoned in Israel, and nothing about the surrender of Hamas.
This is a plan that will fail, and it’s also short-sighted. It will leave Hamas in power and will not end anti-Israel terrorism. If you want a good explication of its problems, read Bret Stephens’s column in the NYT yesterday, “A hostage deal is a poison pill for Israel” (link is archived).
Like me, Stephens is no fan of Netanyahu, but he thinks that the PM is right in his strategy about the war (read the column). Stephens has always been the most sensible NYT op-ed writer about the war: far more cogent than, for example, Tom “I Know Nothing” Friedman. Stephens’s column, which once again I recommend, ends this way:
There are bright people who say that what Israel ought to do now is cut a deal, recover its hostages, take a breather and start preparing for the next war, probably in Lebanon. Israelis should remember that wars will be worse, and come more often, to those who fail to win them.
Here’s my own recommendations for ending the war. They may not work, but they seem sensible, and most of them are based on Malgorzata’s ideas:
a.) Call for the extradition of Mashaal now.
b.) Qatar should arrest all Hamas members finding refuge in that country and freeze their bank accounts (there are billions of dollars there, most of the money in the hands of Hamas). That money should be used to rebuild Gaza.
c.) The first two points should be done under a U.S. threat: do these things or face the removal of the U.S. military presence in Qatar (its base is shared with the RAF, so the UK would have to agree as well). We don’t need the base that badly (we have other bases in other Middle East nations), but Qatar desperately needs it, for without it, oil-rich Qatar will be taken over by countries like the UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.(Qatar has almost no military of its own.) This would be a threat with real teeth. And the U.S. should be ready to follow through with it, as with all meaningful threats.
d.) Instead of confecting unworkable and, frankly, stupid peace plans, the U.S. should simply call for the unconditional surrender of Hamas and the instantaneous release of all the hostages. Hamas will not surrender, of course, but anybody who values their life (and yes, there’s a rub there) must realize that Israel under Netanyahu has vowed to destroy the military capabilities of Hamas—and will do so. The Biden Administration (and Harris, should she win) should be giving nothing to terrorists like Hamas.
The moral right in this conflict lies with Israel, not with Hamas, and the U.S. should be calling for the terrorists to give up, end the war, and release the hostages. Remember again that the “take-it-or-leave-it” deal will not work and gives plenty of stuff to Hamas.
Needless to say, the U.S. should not be cutting aid to Israel, even though some European countries are. Such cuts are again ludicrous and short-sighted given Israel’s care to kill as few Gazan civilians as possible combined with Hamas’s desire to get as many non-combatant Gazan civilians killed as possible to excite the world’s opprobrium against Israel. Right now, Europe, and to some extent the U.S., is doing pretty much what Hamas wants.
e.) What about the day after? A two-state solution is not in the offing right now; that much is clear and amounts to rewarding Hamas for the October 7 attack. I suspect that a military occupation of Gaza will have to occur for some time, as happened in Germany and Japan after World War II. At the same time, Israel and its allies should be grooming reasonable and peaceful Palestinians to take over running Gaza. (I’m not discussing the West Bank here.)
Yes, yes, I know all the weaknesses of this plan: Hamas won’t give up, the U.S. won’t threaten to dismantle a military base, no credible Palestinians who don’t want to destroy Israel will be found, etc. etc. If you want to pick at the plan, at least do something constructive and propose a better one, and one that doesn’t lead to Israel losing the war and facing many more October-7-like episodes.
But one thing is certain, something Bret Stephens encapsulates in his last sentence: all the “cease fire” proposals floating around now are guaranteed to leave Hamas in power, and thus to keep a constant threat of terrorism against Israel. And that means that peace will never be attained.
Israel is winning, bit by bit at substantial cost, just the way the Allies eventually won the Second World War. There is no plausible reason for Israel to be interested in a cease-fire that leaves Hamas in power. (Well, OK, the hostages…) The Allies rebuffed armistice feelers sent out by the Reich through neutral intermediaries that would have left Hitler in power and held out for unconditional surrender, which they got. Israel would sniff around for a cease-fire if it looked as she could not achieve her war aims through continued combat. The only people who want a cease-fire are her enemies (and western politicians worried about Muslim and far-left voters in their coalitions.) But you don’t make your policies according to what your enemies want.
If the United States really would stop aid to Israel were it to say No to the “Take-it-or-leave-it” cease-fire, that would be damnable. Israel should just say, “Leave it.” The threat Israel must make to the United States (Edit: in secret, of course) is, If you cut us off at the knees and risk our destruction, we will nuke Iran before that happens. We will have nothing to lose.
“The Allies rebuffed armistice feelers sent out by the Reich through neutral intermediaries that would have left Hitler in power and held out for unconditional surrender, which they got.”
I understand your point, Leslie, but am not sure whether it’s relevant here/the example is a good one. They also rebuffed the feelers sent out by people who wanted Hitler out, and who certainly would not have continued the Holocaust and all of the other crimes. The intransigency killed millions. I understand why it was done, but the utter disregard for human life (the Holocaust was known by then!) is still shocking to me. Also, if one believes many Ukrainians (I don’t), the Soviet Union post war was just as bad as Hitler, and fighting that war to complete occupation without even so much as talking to the people on the German side who wanted to end it meant giving half of Europe to the Soviet Union. I personally think that part of it wasn’t so bad, but Ukrainians and Baltics go on and on about it. They did not feel liberated by the Soviet Union. (Baltic and Ukrainian nationalists tend to forget the inconvenient stuff, e.g. that the West of Ukraine wouldn’t even be Ukraine without the Soviet Union conquering it for them from Germans and Poles).
What’s true is that there are situations without good or safe solutions. And we have no dearth of such situations in the current state of the world.
I am reading up a bit and reconsidering some of what I wrote. I may misremember some of what I assumed. Not talking to the people who wanted Hitler gone might not have changed a thing, as there was still the practical difficulty to get rid of Hitler, and it’s doubtful they would have succeeded better with assurances of an armistice once they gained power.
My last (de roolz…): An interesting book excerpt on FDR’s unconditional surrender demand: https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/unconditional-surrender-questioning-fdrs-prerequisite-peace/
I appreciate your efforts here, Ruth. Niall Ferguson and other historians have addressed this as well. In respect of Da Roolz I’ll leave it at that. Thanks.
I think a lot of the history here is wrong. Germany did not (de facto) ‘unconditionally surrender’. Germany was overrun. Berlin fell to the USSR. Japan both de facto and de jure did ‘unconditionally surrender’.
Germany also surrendered unconditionally. The German Instrument of Surrender, signed on May 8, 1945, begins with, “We the undersigned, acting by authority of the German High Command, hereby surrender unconditionally to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and simultaneously to the Supreme High Command of the Red Army all forces on land, at sea, and in the air who are at this date under German control.”
I had been casting around for information about why Qatar really needs the US/British military base. Is there a real possibility that neighboring countries like Saudi Arabia would swallow it up? Right now that seems more hypothetical to me. Also Russia might be very happy to move right in to fill the gap.
A few points:
Qatar will not extradite the terrorists. Their one “thing” is “balance” – their main self appointed role in the world is as a negotiator. To “sell out” their terrorist buddies is a bad look.
US will not abandon Al Ubeid Base, nor can we realistically threaten to do so: it is too valuable and there aren’t many other good alternative places in the region.
We need geostrategic depth to keep patrolling the area. And we need to keep patrolling. I used to be a tad critical of our role as global cop but the past decade has changed my thinking. Unless people would rather China or Russia do it…
We won’t threaten Qatar – especially not over two-bit murders of today when their murderous children will be the next generation of Israel killers. The problem is larger than the personalities involved. I have a bottle of (kosher, actually) wine ready to uncork for when these guys exit Qatar for any reason and the IDF mashes them. Can’t wait.
There is also a Turkish base in Qatar the Qataris invited in about a decade ago to help make themselves uninvadable. They NEED to be uninvadable (witness Saudi’s “helping” Bahrain’s dictators during the Arab spring). And the blockade of Qatar later. It is game theory writ large. Many moving parts.
————————–
Extradition requests only are functional when the extraditing country WANTS to extradite (usually only criminals, not politicals).
D.A.
NYC
https://democracychronicles.org/author/david-anderson/
ok, that helps. But there is being a broker and being complicit to pure evil. I don’t understand why Qatar would want to be in that position. And why can’t Israel just eliminate Haniyeh (the Hamas leader based in Qatar)? Get it done and take the heat. I realize that this probably would have little impact on the larger goals of Hamas, but still. …
I’m just guessing here. Israel was able to kill the guy in Iran because there are plenty of Iranians willing to do it (the regime is unpopular and Iran contains people of many ethnicities). The deal included getting the perps out of Iran, according to an account I read.
Qatar is small and all Arab. It would be much harder to fine someone to do the deed.
I agree with everything you’re proposing. Using leverage against Qatar is a new twist to consider.
In essence, Israel needs to insist that (1) the hostages are released, (2) Hamas must be removed from power, (3) Hamas must be eliminated as a current threat to Israel, and (4) Hamas must not be able to become a threat in the future. Any serious proposal must adhere to these principles. I do think that Israel is making progress.
The question of an Israeli presence in the Philadelphi Corridor—a critical sticking point in the negotiations—is an important one for principle #4. Netanyahu is (rightly, in my view) seeking to maintain an Israeli presence there, but may accept a different model for protecting that corridor against new weapons shipments if an acceptable alternative can be found. I hope that the U.S. is not going to produce a take-it-or-leave it offer. Reports I’ve read have the U.S. denying that they are considering one. The harsh rhetoric may be an effort to apply pressure on both parties.
Netanyahu needs to do what’s right for Israel. Giving in on any of the principles will only bring deep heartache to Israel (#1) and/or ensure that Hamas invades Israel again in the future (#2-4). The pleas from the Israeli public to prioritize the hostages must be weighing heavily on the Israeli leadership. What do they prioritize more highly—the state of the hostages or the State of Israel? They will try with all their might to balance both.
There should be no confusion that a Hamas is fully responsible for the Hell that they have created both for Israel and for Gaza.
Why indict 3 dead people? I would think that if they’re dead the indictment would have stopped when their deaths became known. Maybe the reason is because 6 looks better than 3 in a headline?
It’s a good balance – the administration looks tough (we indicted 6 people!) to supporters of Israel, but then can appease the Jew Haters by pointing out that it only really affects 3 people.
Norman, your last sentence is perfect.
I’m not American, Jewish, or Israeli (obviously). The only peace plan I accept is the eradication of Hamas and it’s allies, an unpassable border wall with any Palestinian territory, combined with border guards instructed to shoot on sight anyone or anything that tries to pass it. It has been made clear that no cohabitation can be achieved with so called Palestinians, whether it’s in Israel or the rest of the world. Peace can only be achieved if we isolate them in their box, and let them do what they want in there. And if someone wants to call that an open air prison, fine, I don’t care. They’ve earned their sentence of isolation from the world stage, just like the likes of North Korea have.
Wow. I don’t think you’ll get very far with this idea. As much as I find the Palestinian cause to be filled with and driven by hate and violence, imprisoning them is simply evil.
Before October 7, the fence around Gaza was guarded with automatically controlled machine guns that would shoot anyone who tried to breach the barrier. The invaders targeted these machine gun posts during their incursion as well as human-staffed border posts (many of which were manned by women of the Civil Defence Corps, explaining the high uniformed female casualty rate that day.)
Trusted residents of Gaza were permitted to enter Israel in large numbers through official border crossings to work and to get medical treatment, assisted often by good-hearted residents of kibbutzes. Those crossings are now closed.
I think you will find that the border situation after Hamas eventually capitulates will be pretty much what Alex Barbu imagines. Egypt is unlikely to be any more keen than Israel of Gazans crossing at Rafah. Food and water in, maybe. People out? No.
Of course Egypt won’t take them in. No one will. Even Arab/Muslim countries that tried taking in Palestinian refugees ended up with the Palestinians starting chaos and revolution in the countries that granted them asylum. They can’t even be peaceful in lands that share their religion. They did this to themselves. They’ve sullied their own reputation every step of the way. Only a fool would blindly forgive them and give them a second chance.
Evil you say. Is what Hamas did to Israelis for so long, including the October attack, not evil? Is the harassment that Jews have faced, in US and Europe, since October, from Palestinians and their allies, not evil?
If evil is what it takes to stop the evil that others started, I do not care. At least the entire world can have a bit of peace. And Palestinians are still more than welcomed to create their own peace and prosperity within their little box. And when they’re ready to grow up, and behave like big boys and girls, instead of barbaric frenzied children, then maybe the world will open up to them. Until then, as far as I’m concerned, they have simply proved that they are not worthy, and we are better off applying Star Trek’s Prime Directive on them, until their culture catches up to everyone else.
Nobody is obliged to endure their hate and violence. And if they are isolated, they may finally learn some family planning, because nobody is obliged to absorb their irresponsible and unsustainable population growth, either.
There 3 ways a war usually ends, A wins from B, B wins from A, A and B are tired of fighting and agree some peacetime. Unfortunately religious people are not easily tired of fighting. I think key to peace in the middle east is regime change (for the better) in Iran.