NSCA John Kirby is the one who is wrong, not Smotrich

National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby criticized Israeli Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, for speaking against another attempt for a so-called “hostage deal”.  Smotrich said that the deal would turn into a trap and criticized the mediators for “creating symmetry”, a parity of level, between the hostages and the Palestinian terrorists who would be exchanged for their release.

By attacking Smotrich, Kirby interfered in Israeli internal issues and he even painted the critic as “a matter of concern for Israel’s security” since, among other things, he said that speaking against the deal jeopardizes Israel’s own national security interests.

It is actually much more likely that speaking against “the deal” would go against the Biden administration’s interest in putting a stop to the Israeli plan to eradicate Hamas. The Dems are likely concerned about recovering votes from the radical anti-Israel and pro-Hamas area, as the presidential elections are just a few months away.

Kirby went even further and said something that would alarm most professionals in the security sector:

“Sometimes countries that value the lives of their citizens as we do in the United States and as Israel does, make these kinds of trades to save innocent lives…there’s no surrender in that.”

Admiral Kirby is wrong because, by negotiating, a government puts the lives of its citizens in danger, as the terrorists become aware that this type of strategy provides results, and they will hit again and again. Therefore, countries that value the lives of their citizens should not do these kinds of trades (using Kirby’s language).

Countries that value the lives of their citizens should eradicate terrorist organizations that put at stake their citizens’ lives.

From a counter-terror perspective (placing politics aside), the last thing that should be done is to negotiate with terrorism and release terrorists for hostages. That is simply wrong, and Israel knows this very well since it has been a major pillar of the Jewish State’s position since 1948.

Negotiating implies recognizing the legitimacy of a terrorist entity and surrendering to its demands only encourages further terrorist actions. It’s logical, it’s obvious, it’s history.

To finalize an effective counter-terrorism campaign, as Dr. Boaz Ganor teaches in his IICT courses, it is essential in the short term to fully destroy the operational capabilities of a terrorist organization and in the medium-long term to neutralize its motivation (through a series of measures aimed at attacking propaganda and replacing it with constructive alternatives, an aspect that can only happen after the eradication of Hamas).

Kirby is wrong even on the objectives of the war:

“Let me remind you that most of Hamas’s top leaders are now dead. Hamas’s organized military structure and capacity has been destroyed,” and again, “Israel has now completed nearly all of its major military objectives other than the explicit war aim of bringing the hostages home.”

It is simply not up to Kirby and the Biden administration to decide when Israel has completed its objectives. Plus, the approximative language used by Kirby, such as “most of the Hamas top leaders” and “nearly all of its military objectives” are not in line with a proper strategic and operational imprint based on clear objectives, preciseness, and knowledge of the means to achieve them.

Hamas had no interest in releasing the hostages before, when it was still in stronger conditions, why would Sinwar want to do it now? It’s the only leverage it still has, unless the terrorist organization is given a way to survive and its leader a way to escape, but that would go against the objectives of the war, and therefore against the interests of Israel. It would be absurd to give in right now.

Hamas would find a way to slow down the release of the remaining hostages, earning more time, rearming, and knowing that it can afford it, for months, or maybe years, because the Palestinian terrorists are aware that the tactic pays off and that they can count on the international community’s “humanitarian concern! In the meantime, Hamas will start over with attacks on Israelis.

Smotrich is correct when he speaks of a “trap” and a possible “defeat” of Israel. I would add, a grotesque defeat given the current situation.

Only three actors would gain from such an eventuality: Hamas for pure survival, the Iranian regime for not losing its proxy, and the Biden administration in an attempt to recover some votes and continue with the appeasement towards Tehran which is also bringing Iran closer to acquiring nuclear capabilities.

The Biden administration should rather be pressuring Hamas to free the hostages without conditions, given Hamas’ current weakness (thanks to the Israeli military campaign) instead of pushing for a trap that would bring more bloodthirsty terrorists on the ground and ready to kill Israelis. However, that will never happen with the current administration in Washington, not with the next one, if Kamala Harris becomes the next President.