Couldn't Hamas Just Surrender?
There is a simple solution to the war in Gaza that no one wants to discuss.
I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality. If you were sent this email or are a free subscriber and would like to become a paid subscriber, you can sign up here.
If money is tight or you’re already up to eyeballs in subscriptions, here’s another idea — share this article. Email it to a friend (or even an enemy). Post it on Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn. Text or email it to your wife, husband, mother, father, brother, sister, or even your creepy second cousin in Kuala Lumpur. Word of mouth is often the best way to build support for a creative endeavor, so if everyone here sends it to just one person … it would be much appreciated!
Small piece of housekeeping. If you live in Washington, come join our discussion on January 23, looking at the war in Afghanistan -- and how, in 2002-2003, the US snatched defeat from the jaws of victory after a comprehensive military victory over the Taliban. RSVP here.
Why Doesn’t Hamas Wave The White Flag?
This is a fascinating interview by Puck’s Julia Ioffe with David Sheffer on South Africa’s petition accusing Israel of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention. The International Court of Justice will hear arguments on the case this week. Sheffer makes one point, however, that deserves further amplification.
Hamas could stop it all tomorrow by surrendering. Hamas has the power to prevent genocide. It has had the power to prevent genocide even after it, itself, probably committed genocide on October 7th. It had the power, after October 7th, to subject none of the Palestinian population to what South Africa describes as genocide. Hamas had the power and it did not use that power. Hamas has no right to fight on. It has no right of self-defense. And furthermore, by virtue of the fact that it continues to fight, it brings an enormous amount of suffering and destruction upon the Palestinian people, all of which it could stop by simply surrendering (emphasis added).
For all the calls in Western capitals and public demands for a ceasefire, there is one surefire way to stop the fighting in Gaza — Hamas could give up. It’s not a complicated notion. Hamas can put down their weapons, release Israeli hostages, and stop fighting. As Sheffer points out, Hamas does not have the right to self-defense in this conflict — Israel does. And continuing to fight a war that it is clearly losing brings even more tragedy to the people on whose behalf they are allegedly fighting.
Yet, this solution to the war in Gaza rarely gets discussed. Call it the soft bigotry of low expectations.
There is something truly bizarre about the notion that Israel, which, lest we forget, was attacked on October 7, has a responsibility to stop the fighting — and Hamas, which, of course, violated a ceasefire and initiated the war, does not have the far greater burden to prevent further bloodshed. All the people who are concerned about the deaths of Palestinian civilians should be demanding it. They could march outside the consulates and embassies of Qatar, Turkey, and Iran (all three of whom provide support to Hamas or, in the case of Qatar, give safe haven to the group’s leaders) and call on them to pressure the terrorist group’s leaders to end the war.
It’s not as if Hamas has any hope of victory. Their forces are not going to capture Tel Aviv. There will be no Palestinian flag flying over the holy places of Jerusalem. And there is a good chance that not a single Hamas fighter will ever again tread on Israeli soil (except perhaps as a prisoner of war). So why keep fighting? From the standpoint of international human rights, Israel’s security, and perhaps above all, the Palestinian people, there is no benefit to Hamas remaining s a political and military force in Gaza.
The notion of surrender might seem unfamiliar in the modern era of war-fighting, but generally speaking, this is how wars used to end. One side would be soundly defeated, or their leaders would conclude there was no point in continuing the fight. The latter is essentially the way that World War I ended. The Allies didn’t need to go to Berlin to win the war — the Germans knew their goose was cooked and gave up.
Of course, World War II ended far more tragically. Even though the outcome was clear, hundreds of thousands of civilians died needlessly because Germany and Japan wouldn’t surrender until the bitter end. Still, there weren’t many suggestions then that the Allies should unilaterally stop fighting to spare the lives of German and Japanese civilians. The burden was on the Axis countries to give up. Even today, few would argue that the responsibility for the appalling loss of life in 1945 doesn’t rest on the shoulders of the Axis leaders. After all, they started the war — and kept fighting long after it was clear that victory was impossible.
Thankfully, we’ve come a long way since World War II in how wars are perpetrated — but the concept is the same. When one country or group attacks another country and initiates a conflict — the onus is generally on them to end the war, not the side responding. Today, if you even broach the notion that Ukraine should seek an exit ramp from the war with Russia, you’re shouted down as an appeaser and Putin stooge.
Rather than demand that Hamas lay down its weapons, much of the international community — and pretty much the entire pro-Palestinian activist community — has decided that the responsibility lies with Israel to stop a conflict that is a direct response to Hamas’s actions.
It’s important to note that there are undoubtedly many who look at the conflict, understand little of the politics, see tens of thousands dying, and want it to end. Since Palestinians are largely dying at the hands of Israeli bombs and bullets, they look to Israel to stop fighting. It’s not difficult to understand how one comes to that view.
Putting that aside, I suspect the other major reason there are so few calls for Hamas to surrender is because no one thinks they will. Obviously, they are an extremist, genocidal terrorist organization, but why should they quit? As long as Israel is constantly being pressured to stop the war, what incentive is there for Hamas to do the right thing? Western calls for a ceasefire and demands for restraint from the US and Europe, which are largely a response to the deaths of Palestinian civilians, are part of Hamas’s strategy. The more Palestinians are killed, the more pressure grows on Israel, and the better chance that Hamas can escape the war with some of its fighting force intact. Western public opinion is a strategic asset for Hamas and one they have regularly used to their advantage. As long as pressure is mounting on Israel to stop the war, Hamas has every reason to keep fighting. And if Israel departs Gaza with Hamas’s leaders still alive, the terrorist group still nominally in charge, and its military infrastructure (at least in Southern Gaza) largely intact, it would be an enormous political victory.
The second reason is knee-jerk public opinion, particularly on the left, that immediately assigns all blame to Israel and ignores Hamas’s agency. If one believes that Israel is to blame for the conflict, then, of course, the expectation is they should stop the war — not Hamas. Implicit in that belief system, however, is the notion that Hamas is justified in its “resistance” to Israel. Few Palestinian activists will say that directly. Some will offer ritualistic and pro forma denunciations of the barbarism of October 7. But quite clearly, many believe Israel is an illegitimate, settler-colonial, apartheid state, and while they might object to Hamas’s tactics, they still support their cause.
The irony is that many of the same people who blanche at the notion of Ukrainian concessions to Russia because Moscow started the war take the exact opposite position when it comes to Israel and Hamas. They want the country that was attacked (Israel) to make concessions to its enemy (Hamas) — and primarily because they think that Israel is ultimately to blame for the current situation not the terrorist group that just savagely killed 1,200 Israelis.
It’s a crucial reminder that how we think about these conflicts — and how they are reported — is often defined by our ideological priors and whose side we support. Intellectual consistency, historical precedent, and basic common sense would suggest that the burden should be on Hamas to give up the fight in Gaza. Yet, virtually no one is talking about it.
Musical Interlude
Best analysis I have seen of the situation in Gaza.
Thank you for this summary. I never hear anyone telling Hamas to stop bombing -- only Israel. If you look at history, Israel has offered various peace deals over the decades which Arabs (now known as Palestinians) have turned down. I don't think one will be accepted to end the current war. But Israel will be further condemned, no matter what. I think that's their point.