Biden Negotiator Reveals Hamas Never Planned Compromise, Blames US Pressure
Translated & summarized from Channel 9 by baba
Brett McGurk, a top U.S. negotiator, revealed in an interview that Hamas never intended to compromise on hostage deals, contrary to narratives pushed by some media. He stated that Hamas's initial demands were to return to the pre-October 7 status quo and that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu correctly understood Hamas's intransigence. McGurk also criticized U.S. pressure for concessions, arguing that Netanyahu's tougher approach was more effective in securing hostage releases. He suggested that military action and threats, rather than diplomacy alone, were key to breaking Hamas's deadlock.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Hamas leader Sinwar never planned any compromises, according to U.S. negotiator Brett McGurk.
- McGurk stated Netanyahu's approach correctly countered Hamas's demands from the start.
- Hamas's initial demand was to return to the October 7 status quo, McGurk revealed.
- McGurk criticized U.S. pressure for concessions, saying Netanyahu's tougher stance yielded better results.
- The U.S. abstention on a UN vote demanding a ceasefire without hostages was a "catastrophe," McGurk said.
- McGurk believes military force and threats, not just diplomacy, were crucial in advancing hostage deals.
Brett McGurk, the Biden administration's chief negotiator for the Middle East, stated in a podcast interview that Hamas never intended to compromise during hostage negotiations and that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's approach was correct. McGurk detailed that Hamas's initial demand was to return to the status quo of October 7, seeking to retain control of Gaza and exchange all prisoners for hostages. He asserted that Hamas leader Sinwar had no intention of compromise, citing the collapse of a November 2023 deal when Hamas claimed it could not find young female hostages and offered elderly men instead. McGurk stated that Israel's cabinet unanimously refused this, believing Hamas intended to hide the women and conceal atrocities.
McGurk also revealed that proposals on May 31 and August 16, which he claimed met 80% of Hamas's demands, were accepted by Israel. In response, McGurk alleged, Hamas executed six hostages, including young women who should have been released earlier, and released a video of them on their burial day. He recounted that Washington pressured Israel to offer maximum concessions, but Netanyahu insisted this was counterproductive, allowing Hamas to demand more. McGurk cited an instance in November where he, along with Egyptians, urged acceptance of Hamas's offer to release only 20 hostages, but Netanyahu demanded 50, which McGurk successfully negotiated, proving his tougher stance was more effective.
McGurk described a post-execution scene where he told President Biden that a deal would not be reached until Yahya Sinwar was dead. He dismissed public pressure and threats of embargoes against Israel, calling them foolish, as Israel possesses a significant domestic military-industrial complex. McGurk attributed a "catastrophe" to the U.S. abstention on a UN Security Council vote demanding a ceasefire without a hostage release, which he said emboldened Hamas leaders to increase their demands. He characterized this as "performative diplomacy" yielding no results, as Sinwar, hiding in Rafah tunnels, used U.S. pressure on Netanyahu as leverage.
McGurk concluded that Hamas's strategy of holding hostages for years was only broken when "brute force" came into play, citing IDF actions against Hezbollah and the eventual elimination of Sinwar. He mentioned a January 2025 ultimatum from a Trump envoy, threatening "hell" if hostages were not returned by the inauguration, and a subsequent strike on Qatar, suggesting that the threat of total destruction ultimately worked where prolonged persuasion failed. McGurk stated the White House now recognizes that Israel will no longer tolerate "potential threats" on its borders, and no U.S. president can force Jerusalem to accept militants near its fence for the sake of "international peace." He contrasted U.S. and Israeli national security approaches, noting Israel's focus on action due to its existential survival needs.
Mentioned
