Boehler, the disgraced hostage envoy, now scrambles to backtrack

It is hard to overstate the strangeness of the past few weeks in the realm of hostage diplomacy. Reports now confirm that Adam Boehler, the Trump administration’s former hostage envoy, made an offer to Hamas earlier this year that included the release of 100 Palestinian prisoners – or ‘hostages,’ as he called them – serving life sentences in exchange for Edan Alexander, an Israeli-American hostage, along with the bodies of four other Americans. Israel, however, supposedly a key partner in the negotiations and the country that Boehler in his role as the US Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs spoke on behalf of, was not told.

According to Boehler now, the offer had been ‘coordinated with Israel.’ According to Israel, though, it wasn’t. This is the problem.

In general – and in a war where lives are on the line especially – ambiguity is not a virtue. There is no room for rogue diplomacy where the negotiator places their ‘specific interests’ above their position, especially with a terrorist group like Hamas. Boehler’s conversations with them – carried out without formal Israeli involvement and through direct meetings – have, unsurprisingly, reignited a discussion about the role the United States sees itself playing in this war, and whether Israel gets any say at all.

For years, Israel has insisted on strict red lines in its negotiations over hostages: no negotiations with Hamas directly, no large-scale prisoner releases that could endanger Israeli lives – though some argue that this ship has already sailed, as many of the prisoners released for Gilad Shalit in 2011 following his capture by Palestinian militants in 2005 went on to commit the massacres of October 7 – and, of course, no undermining of Israel’s sovereignty in such decisions. Boehler, in his ‘unorthodox,’ ‘off-the-books’ approach, trampled over all three.

That this sort of freelance diplomacy came from a former United States official tied to the Trump administration is, perhaps, less surprising. Trump’s foreign policy, in both his terms, has never been known for its coordination of discretion. But the issue here is not solely one of mere diplomatic embarrassment; it’s about trust. A deal of this scale, orchestrated behind Israel’s back, sends the message that Israel’s input is optional when it comes to its own security, but also that Israel does not have a firm enough grip on its negotiations to know who is doing what.

And the confusion only grows: after Hamas reportedly accepted Boehler’s offer, the United States suddenly pivoted to a separate initiative led by Steve Witkoff, mediated via Qatar and Egypt. What exactly is going on here?

Let’s be clear, though: the effort to bring hostages is vital. It is one of the most morally charged duties a government, especially Israel in its unique position as the sole democracy of the Middle East and the ‘light unto the nations,’ has. But if that duty is to truly mean anything significant, it must be exercised with accountability, transparency, and yes – coordination. Hamas is not to be negotiated with as if the matter were simply a haggle over real estate. It is to be done with allies, with a plan.

The timing of all this is equally troubling. With Hamas dragging out their talks for rather obvious, malevolent reasons, and mediators struggling to maintain the faintest of traces of momentum that we see currently, every missed opportunity deepens the sense of despair felt by the families of the hostages. For Edan Alexander, Boehler’s main objective and yet the man the envoy referred to by his father’s name Adi on more than one occasion, to learn that a deal may have come and gone is nothing short of cruel. This is especially so given that it would have been brokered by a man who David Horowitz described perfectly in an op-ed last month: ‘complacent, confused and dangerously naive’ – having no official mandate, no clarity, and apparently, no backing. And yet Boehler still insists in an interview with Al Jazeera – of all media channels – that the talks could still happen again: ‘I think it is possible.’

There is also the question of precedent. If the United States’ allies, especially those in the Middle East, begin to view Israeli involvement as optional, or begin to see its objections as mere noise to be blocked out, it sets a dangerous standard. It invites more ad-hoc diplomacy. It weakens the already fragile alliance system, and it reinforces a trend of sidelining Israel in matters of direct existential concern.

What is particularly painful about this episode, though, is that it exposes a clear vacuum of leadership. If Israel had a clearer, more unified approach to hostage negotiations, this sort of freelancing might not gain traction. But the current coalition is fractured, deeply politicised, and perpetually at odds over even the most basic of policy questions. Into that void steps Adam Boehler.

There is a lesson here, and it is not one of petty score-settling. Real diplomacy requires not simply the moral clarity to bring the hostages home, but the political discipline to do it right.