The Consequences of Biden’s Hostage Deal

China’s and Russia’s Eyes are on the White House

The details of the current hostage deal are sketchy but from what has been discussed it is the same deal that Hamas has been speaking about for the last few months.  Biden’s statement a few months ago that Israel’s then offer was very generous was quite obviously not generous enough because not all of Hamas’s demands were met.   Now, it seems, this proposal meets all of Hamas’s demands, without a concession from them.  It includes a total cessation of combat, complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, a guarantee of the lives of the Hamas leaders.  Equally important is what is not in it - a requirement from Hamas to give any information at any stage of the “deal” regarding the names or numbers of hostages alive or dead and any guarantee that those hostages still alive, will be alive when they are returned.  There is also no guarantee that all hostages will be returned.

The hostage deal is the Biden-Blinken foreign policy, par-excellence.   It fits the same pattern that started in Afghanistan where the Taliban were given everything and allied Afghani government nothing and worked its way to Ukraine where Ukrainian troops were allowed to win various battles on its own territory so long as ‘mother Russia” was never touched.  Much as the Nixon-Kissinger opening to China was a model of that administration’s containment and balance of power policy, the hostage deal, as outlined by Biden, should be seen as a model of what is to come in conflicts existing or in the future.  This deal has everything in it.   It calls for cessation of combat for the purpose of cessation of combat.  It calls for its ally to agree to all of the demands of its enemy.   Most of all, it is based on a balance of power theory that favors sworn enemies of the United States over its allies.  It leaves Iran and its proxies in place and Hezbollah stronger.  It leaves the Houthis victorious over the US Navy.

This balance of power theory, where allies that are not morally perfect need to be balanced by enemies with no moral compass in order to perfect the moral standing of the ally is a novel and revolutionary theory of international relations.  It demands allies to be angels and be balanced by the devil.  It demands that the devil be compensated for his deeds.

What does this novel balance of power theory as personified by hostage deal tell China and Russia?

The first thing they will understand from this deal is that the United States will use soft power and its diplomatic heft to pressure allies into non-belligerency agreements no matter the consequences down the road, since victory is not an option and war never solved anything.   While it will allow its ally time to come to the conclusion, on its own, that wars can never be won, it will help it along the way with diplomatic nudges and threats. Finally, formal agreements will be forced upon it.    China and Russia will understand that the United States sees itself as the enforcer of non-belligerency and not the protector of freedom and its interests as it sees war not as politics by other means or even as a last resort but as a non-option in international relations.   Centuries of Just War theory go out the window and deterrence goes along with it.

The hostage agreement is the final step in a series of Administration moves to contain Israel and prevent it from threatening the power of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a Chinese and Russian ally.   It started on October 7 with administration denial of Iranian involvement in the Hamas attack, continued the day or two after with Blinken’s tweet (since deleted) calling for a cease fire and worked its way through comments such as “indiscriminate bombing” to “get out of Gaza” to finally a document that demands that Israel to do just that.

China has a number of targets in the Indo-Pacific and a long term plan to replace America as the world leader.

What makes the hostage deal especially important to the Chinese is that it a US enforced Israeli surrender to Hamas.    Even in the first phase of the agreement where some 33 “humanitarian” case hostages will be handed over, Hamas will determine who they are and how many of these 33 will be amongst the living.  Hamas is said to demand that all of Israel’s obligations be guaranteed by the United States.  Hamas does not seem to have any hard obligations and, in any event, there is no one to enforce them if Israeli arms are neutralized.

The hostage agreement basically says that the US agrees with Hamas that its ally cannot be trusted and that it will guarantee good behavior.  For China, this is a gift it will happily receive.

Not only Taiwan but the entire South China Sea are in China’s short term sites.  The Philippines is already in confrontation with China where just a few days ago Philippine President Marcos warned against China crossing “red lines”.  Philippines consider harm to its citizens as an “act of war” – as they should.    Will taking prisoners or hostages by China be met with aircraft carriers in the South China Sea or pressure on Philippines to acquiesce to China’s demands?  Will the US accept the Philippines definition of “act of war” or force it to “take the win” – or the loss, as the case may be?  The hostage agreement model says no act of war will be enough to justify a military response.  Non-belligerency agreements are the only solution in the Biden-Blinken bag of tricks.

China is sure to be thinking that if the rape, murder and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and civilians by Hamas is met with calls to surrender, then surely the taking of the same from the Philippines will be met by US demands from its allies and not the aggressor. The same could be said for Taiwanese citizens.  They are more at risk since they often do business in China and since the Chinese consider them Chinese citizens already, a US challenge to their imprisonment will be an intrusion on China’s internal interests.  Will Taiwan be forced to sign a surrender to China to get its citizens back?  Will they be able to find out information about them? 

For Russia it is even a greater gift.   Russia will see from this agreement that it will never have to return the Ukrainian children it kidnapped at the start of the war and will never have to return any of the territory it took.   Ukraine can expect a freshly typed agreement that will end the war on terms Russia will dictate.

In short – this hostage agreement, which in reality is a one sided non-belligerency agreement, will be seen by China and Russia as a model for the US approach to hot wars around the world.   China, and Russia (let alone Iran which is essentially a side to this agreement) can now use this as a blueprint for starting and ending wars with US allies.

One thing that this agreement has told to the world – for the current administration, victory is no longer an option.  US allies need to tell the enemy where they will be fighting, they need to eliminate parts of their military repertoire by announcing what they won’t do and most of all, they need to stop before victory is complete. 

Just think of D-Day, whose 80^th anniversary is this week and imagine that after all that sacrifice, Roosevelt and Churchill announced, after the liberation of France that they would stop at the Rhine and negotiate an agreement that would leave the Nazis in power – assuring the world that a weakened Nazi military would mean that 1939 could never happen again.  They would have explained that the goal all along was not the destruction of the Nazi state but just making sure they would not “threaten their neighbors”.

That is the message of the “hostage agreement” that the Biden Administration has given the world.   

As for Israel – it is not yet clear who if anyone knew of this beforehand.  Was it Netanyahu?  Gantz?  Was it Ehud Barak?  My guess is it was someone in the government and I fear that, in addition to the usual threats of total abandonment there was a quid pro quo there.  Something to do with Hague, perhaps?   Or support to what will be an upcoming Israeli election?  Was it a threat not to veto anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council?  Withold arms yet again?   It’s a horrible thing to think it may have been personal quid pro quo’s and I hope my fears are unfounded.  When push comes to shove, if the United States threatens to abandon you diplomatically and insist in no uncertain terms that victory is not an option even if your unified war cabinet has insisted for months that victory is the only option, one has to think long and hard before saying an outright “no”.

That being said, the Israeli government has to press the United States to understand the larger picture here – something they should understand well at Foggy Bottom and the White House. But as we have been saying for quite some time, the object is not to look at this as an opportunity to show how US power and US allies can deal with the Axis, but to look at this war as an opportunity for punishing Israel for existing. 

With all that and with the fact that this is a bad deal for Israel because it doesn’t allow Israel to defeat Hamas and will not, in the end, return of all the hostages, Israel still can’t say “no”.  It can say, “yes, but” and concentrate on the things that will give Israel some advantage when Hamas abrogates the agreement. 

The first “but” is information about the hostages and medical treatment for them.  Israel needs to insist, finally, that the end of fighting is dependent on releasing the names of the hostages and their condition.  It depends on having non-Gazans visit them and give them necessary medical treatment.  The second is not to leave the Philadelphia Corridor (on the border with Egypt) and the Netzarim Corridor (just to the south of the city of Gaza).   The third demand has to be a solution to the other fronts – specifically but not exclusively the Lebanese front.  This can’t include Hezbollah sitting where they are and a general cease fire but must include strict enforcement of UN Security Resolution 1701 and the uncovering of Hezbollah’s North Korean built tunnel network south of the Litani River.   The last demand has to be to reign in Iran and end their nuclear program.  

These of course are not in Biden deal, but if this administration really wants non-belligerency, at least it should do it right.  In any event, this hostage deal, cooked up in the tunnels of Gaza and excitingly approved by the White House and Foggy Bottom who assigned its authorship to Israel, will harm not only Israel but also US interests– assuming that is, that according to the Biden-Blinken foreign policy the US national interests don’t align with terrorists and dictators.