NYT Columnist Calls Hamas Hostage Release a ‘Big Risk’ After Trump’s Ceasefire
President Trump’s team brokered a ceasefire that many hailed as a major diplomatic achievement, and it drew applause from allies. But a New York Times analyst in Tel Aviv offered a very different take, suggesting the hostage releases carry danger for Hamas itself.
On October 7, 2023, Hamas carried out a brutal assault inside Israel that killed roughly 1,200 civilians and seized about 250 hostages. Adam Rasgon suggested the group is taking a “big risk” by releasing its remaining 48 hostages, more than half of whom are presumed to be dead.
The Palestinian militant group had long said it was willing to release all the hostages in exchange for the complete withdrawal of Israeli military forces from Gaza, a permanent end to the war and the release of Palestinian prisoners.
The deal reached on Thursday only guarantees one of those three things: the prisoner release. There is no certainty it will lead to the end of the war and, initially, it only provides for a partial withdrawal of Israeli forces.
Unconscionable.
The Times and other left-leaning outlets seem baffled about why readers and voters are drifting away, and this kind of framing helps explain the gap. Meanwhile, Democrats are still trying to figure out why they were punished at the ballot box in 2024 and why their coalition is weakening.
As part of its analysis, The Times quoted Esmat Mansour, a Palestinian analyst who spent years in Israeli prisons alongside Hamas figures, to explain the group’s calculations. He cautioned that what looks like a concession could be a gamble for Hamas:
Hamas just made major concessions. It is taking a risk in believing the war will end, but it also has few other options at its disposal. [There’s a] long road is ahead of us. The remaining issues are not easy ones.
If the remaining issues “are not easy ones,” that will be because Hamas refuses to relinquish its arsenal, continues terrorist strikes against Israel, and enforces control inside Gaza with brutal measures, including public executions of Palestinians accused of collaboration. Those facts complicate any notion that the hostage release is simply a humanitarian victory.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been crystal clear: Hamas must surrender its weaponry before the war can truly be declared over. That position matters because it recognizes a simple reality. Arms create the capacity for renewed violence, and capacity matters more than pledges on paper.
Hamas treats disarmament as surrender and treats armed struggle as a legitimate means to reclaim territory, which makes a long-term halt to attacks unlikely without external enforcement. Political deals will not by themselves dismantle the structures that allow terrorism to recur.
Already, some social media keyboard jockeys are gleefully declaring “Peace!” after news of phase one of the agreement and President Trump’s 20-point plan. I am reminded of Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 line “Peace in our time” after his talks with Adolf Hitler.
Less than one year later, Hitler’s Army invaded Poland, and World War II was on.
Simply, Hamas must be disarmed, at the very least.
