The Failures of De-escalation: Hostage Negotiations with Hamas
As negotiations between Hamas and Israel have stalled to release the remaining hostages held in Gaza together with the resumption of military operations, the Trump administration’s aggressive rhetoric, including threats of escalation have served as the hallmark of its negotiating strategy. This, together with additional Israeli pressure, including electricity cuts to the coastal enclave and reduced levels of humanitarian aid with the credible use of force, can be contrasted with the Biden administration’s strategy during the earlier stages of the negotiations. It is therefore important to take a retrospective view on the circumstances that got us to this critical point, including a critical reassessment of the Biden administration’s management of the hostage negotiations. This, as following the initial release of hostages in late November 2023, negotiations stalled for over a year, and it was only in early 2025 that a diplomatic breakthrough was reached.
In his exit interview with The New York Times, former Secretary of State Antony Blinken placed the blame squarely on Hamas for delaying negotiations. While this is true, Blinken’s assessment overlooks a critical failure of U.S. strategy: at several pivotal moments, American mediators—through their public rhetoric and diplomatic approach—inadvertently strengthened Hamas’ position and hindered a speedier resolution to the hostage crisis.
Hamas’ Negotiation Strategy: Media, Leverage, and Delays
In the months following the October 7 attacks, Hamas’ approach became evident to Israeli negotiators. The terror group understood that its survival depended not just on military resistance but also on external pressure against Israel, which it skillfully generated through propaganda and diplomatic maneuvering.
Through its deft use of social media and its Qatari-backed mouthpiece, Al Jazeera, Hamas mobilized the Arab street and sympathetic voices in the West. This was more than just a public relations campaign—it was a core element of Hamas’ war strategy. The group sought to create enough external pressure to limit Israel’s military options all while strengthening its own bargaining power in hostage negotiations.
Hamas’ priorities in the negotiations were clear. First and foremost was ensuring a continuous flow of humanitarian aid, which it could control and distribute to maintain its grip on Gaza’s population. Second, was minimizing Israeli military incursions into Gaza by leveraging global calls for de-escalation. Finally, and no less important was securing the release of Palestinian terrorists held in Israeli jails. For Israel, these objectives were understood from the outset. But for Washington, the Biden administration’s strategy unknowingly aligned with Hamas’ goals—minimizing Israel’s military actions and allowing Hamas to dictate the terms of engagement.
How U.S. Policy Strengthened Hamas’ Hand
By early 2024, the Biden administration had increased pressure on Israel to allow large-scale humanitarian aid into Gaza. While intended as a humanitarian measure, this had the unintended consequence of strengthening Hamas. With Hamas still having a stranglehold over Gaza, it was able to control aid distribution, thus ensuring that vital resources were used to reinforce its own position.
Far more damaging, however, was Washington’s public messaging, which sent confusing signals to both allies and adversaries. On February 8, 2024, President Biden publicly criticized Israel’s offensive as “over the top.” White House officials also repeatedly pressured Israel to halt its planned military operation in Rafah, warning that such an escalation would be unacceptable.
For Hamas, these statements confirmed what it had already suspected: that time was on its side. Rather than make concessions, Hamas interpreted U.S. pressure on Israel as a sign that it could hold firm, delay negotiations, and wait for Washington to force Israeli withdrawals.
A Hamas official reportedly told an Arab media outlet at the time: “If the Americans push Israel hard enough, we won’t need to concede anything.” This assessment was not mistaken. Every sign of public division between Washington and Jerusalem encouraged Hamas to harden its negotiating stance, dragging out talks and delaying hostage releases.
The confusion deepened as American and Israeli officials struggled to align their positions. Even as private diplomacy continued, public disputes—especially threats from Washington to withhold military aid—reinforced Hamas’ belief that Israel would ultimately be forced to back down.
Hamas Miscalculates: The Israeli Rafah Operation
In the end, Hamas miscalculated. When Israel launched its offensive in Rafah and dismantled Hamas’ infrastructure, the terror group was caught by surprise. It had believed Washington would prevent such an escalation.
The turning point in hostage negotiations was not diplomatic pressure but military action. Only after suffering significant territorial and operational losses did Hamas shift its position, paving the way for the eventual deal.
Lessons for Future U.S.-Israel Coordination
As Israel works to bring its remaining citizens home, the lessons from this episode should not be ignored. The public perception of division between Washington and Jerusalem was Hamas’ greatest diplomatic asset.
Former Secretary of State Blinken himself admitted: “Hamas, when they saw Israel under pressure publicly, they pulled back.” This should serve as a warning for future negotiations. Any diplomatic effort that pressures Israel without demanding immediate concessions from Hamas will only prolong crises—not resolve them.
To avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, Washington must ensure that its public messaging aligns with its strategic objectives. If the goal is to weaken Hamas and bring hostages home, U.S. policymakers must recognize that any signal of Israeli restraint without parallel pressure on Hamas only emboldens the group. During the negotiations, a surge in Israel’s offensive before Ramadan in the spring of 2024 could have brought Hamas to a breaking point and led to a breakthrough in the negotiations. Instead, in direct contravention to Israel’s combat doctrine which places at its epicenter a quick and offensive approach, as well as the strategy laid out by the Prime Minister, Israel was forced to pull back as American pressure and diplomatic considerations limited Israel’s room to maneuver. Increased pressure at this critical juncture could have helped bridge gaps in negotiations and reach strategically reasonable prices for both the Israeli public and government.
The Biden administration’s failure was not in negotiating—it was in failing to recognize how its approach shaped Hamas’ strategy. If Washington is serious about preventing future hostage crises, it must ensure that its diplomatic efforts do not become Hamas’ most valuable weapon. Effective negotiations with terror organizations are not built on goodwill or rhetoric alone. They require the consistent application of leverage—primarily through sustained military pressure and credible threats of escalation. Without such pressure, diplomacy risks becoming an empty gesture, allowing adversaries like Hamas to stall, regroup, and dictate the terms. In future crises, the U.S. must prioritize strength over signals, ensuring that every negotiation is backed by unmistakable consequences for intransigence. It is therefore incumbent on the Trump administration to heed the mistakes of the past, providing a template to better manage future hostage negotiations.
Eyal Tsir Cohen is a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) and a former senior executive in Israel’s Prime Minister’s Office, where he served for 35 years. He also held the role of chief negotiator in high-stakes hostage release negotiations until August 2024.
Jesse R. Weinberg is a Neubauer Research Fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) and coordinator of the institute’s program on Israel and the Global Powers.
This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.
