Brett McGurk, a former functionary under the Biden administration, recently penned a piece in The Washington Post, where he admitted Hamas’ continuous refusal to agree to terms of a ceasefire and hostage release agreement. In a sequence of events that surprised no one, Hamas issued a threat last week declaring it would not free three hostages planned for release this past Saturday. Once again, the reality of Hamas’ unreliability shone through their actions, tarnishing the already dismal record of international relations under the Biden administration.
McGurk attempted to paint the Biden administration’s lack of pressure on Israel to end the Gaza war — a conflict initiated by Hamas on October 7, 2023 — as justified. He put forth the flimsy claim that during ceasefire negotiations, Hamas consistently wavered on a commitment to free hostages and strived to retain power post-conflict. However, the truth of the matter is that Hamas’ recent threats merely highlight the recurring theme of the administration’s inability to control the region’s volatility.
The sheer audacity of asserting that President Biden made the right call in standing firmly by Israel and demanding the release of hostages by Hamas pairs ill with the reality, with Trump’s perspective being the more grounded one. Indeed, it was President Trump who rightfully insisted on the same demand. Trying to project Biden as decisive does little to rescue his administration’s tattered international reputation.
In a feeble attempt at a damage limitation exercise, McGurk recollected the first unsuccessful hostage deal in November 2023. It was his claim that less than two months into the crisis, a US-mediated deal collapsed owing to Hamas rejecting the release of young women hostages they had pledged to free. The reality, however, underscores the inability of the Biden administration to negotiate effectively, resulting in a failure to secure the guarantee of the release of the hostages from Hamas.
McGurk portrays Biden’s support for Israel, while working towards a ceasefire deal and making futile attempts at mitigating war’s humanitarian impact, as the only logical path. An attempt was made to sell this stance in a national address on May 31, outlining a three-phase deal to free hostages. However, such grand plans hold little weight when the core issues, including a postwar Gaza without Hamas influence, are not addressed effectively.
McGurk went ahead to debunk Hamas’s claims that they accepted these proposals in July. He disclosed that not once did Hamas agree to a specific list of hostages for release in the event of a ceasefire. But realistically, that could more accurately reflect the administration’s failure in negotiations rather than Hamas’ obstinacy.
During long drawn-out negotiations in Cairo and Doha, McGurk claims Hamas focussed primarily on Israel’s military and other interests while ignoring the critical issue of hostage release during the ceasefire. He affirms that Hamas showed an alarming lack of regard for Gaza’s civilians, a situation which could have been eased by the proposed ceasefire and subsequent humanitarian aid. This claim, however, merely served to divert attention from the administration’s fumbled negotiations.
Highlighting the harsh reality of the situation, McGurk listed the fateful case of Hersh Goldberg-Polin, an American hostage who lost his life brutally at the hands of Hamas. His tragic demise only underlines the administration’s ongoing failure to secure hostages, despite their continued show of force against Israel, backed by Iran and Hezbollah.
According to McGurk, one pivotal aspect that eventually led to the success of the negotiations was Hamas’ isolation and its dwindled ability to rely on a multifront conflict. It wasn’t until late December that Hamas came around to naming hostages to be released and started engaging seriously on the terms of their release. However, a significant push came not from the so-called ‘forceful diplomacy’ of the Biden administration but from actual force exerted across the Middle East.
Last week, as Hamas wavered on releasing hostages per its schedule, Mcgurk noted Trump’s ultimatum that all hostages be released. He rightly asserts that Trump’s sharp action was in place. Unfortunately, the approval of the Biden administration of the deal seems to revolve around the continued release of hostages and acceptance of a future where Israelis and Palestinians coexist peacefully. But realistically, this means a Gaza without Hamas in charge – a goal the Biden administration has failed to secure.
They say if you cannot beat them; then join them – an adage that the Biden administration seems to have taken too seriously regarding Hamas. Even as Israel is living up to its commitments under the deal, Biden’s administration seems to have shelved its leverage. The likely restart of war due to Hamas reneging on its commitments will be an unfortunate but foreseeable outcome given the administration’s track record.
McGurk concluded that it would be tragic if the war were to restart, placing the blame on Hamas. However, this statement conceals the colossal failure of the Biden-Harris administration, which has been repeatedly ineffective in its Middle East policy. Behind the curtains of media op-eds, one can discern a grim reality that questions the approach of the Biden-Harris administration towards the Israeli-Palestine conflict and its persistent inability to pressure enemy combatants into compromises.
The continuous cycle of threats, failed negotiations, and the inability of the Biden-Harris administration to control the volatile situation in the Middle East are worrying indications indeed. The administration’s policies seem to be based more on personal biases and unachievable ideals than on geopolitical reality, leading to dire consequences for all involved.
Despite the attempts to sugarcoat the Biden administration’s failing Middle East policies, the reality is all too clear. This administration’s inability to effect meaningful change and bring lasting peace to the Middle East paints them as ineffective negotiators, enfeebling their influence. Worse still, their bias against Israel and their understated support for Hamas unmasks an unsettling inclination towards the forces destabilizing the region.