The only way to ensure the safety of the remaining hostages is through an agreement with Hamas. But a cease-fire in exchange for a hostage release would almost certainly leave Hamas in control of Gaza and allow it to recruit, refit and rearm for another attack.
Also, it’s important to remember that the long and deadly history of conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has rendered the Gazan population far more hostile to the I.D.F. than most Iraqis were to American forces. Israel has a more difficult challenge than we faced — though the emergence of (unimaginably courageous) demonstrators against Hamas in Gaza indicates that there is an appetite for change.
Israel is facing a terrible choice. If it wants to remove Hamas from power, it almost certainly has to pursue an occupation that would divide the nation and further enrage the international community. If it wants to secure the release of the hostages, it will almost certainly have to agree to a cease-fire that leaves Hamas in place and sets the stage for future conflicts.
It remains to be seen whether Israel’s new approach is anything more than bluster. Perhaps Israel’s threats are little more than negotiation tactics. Perhaps Israel will ultimately prioritize releasing the remaining hostages over ending Hamas’s despotic rule. But one thing is crystal clear.
There are no shortcuts in war.
Some other things I did
My Sunday column was about two Supreme Court cases examining dreadful examples of police misconduct and exposing the difficulty of holding government officials accountable for their misdeeds. Do we wonder why so many Americans distrust the government? Perhaps because of incidents like this:
In the predawn hours of Oct. 18, 2017, an F.B.I. SWAT team detonated a flash-bang grenade at a home at 3756 Denville Trace in Atlanta. A team of federal agents rushed in.
The family inside was terrified. Hilliard Toi Cliatt lived there with his partner, Curtrina Martin, and her 7-year-old son, Gabe. They had no idea who had entered their house. Cliatt tried to protect Martin by grabbing her and hiding in a closet.
Martin screamed, “I need to get my son.” The agents pulled Cliatt and Martin out of the closet, holding them at gunpoint as Martin fell to the floor, half-naked. When they asked Cliatt his address, “All the noise just ended.”
He told them: 3756 Denville Trace. But it turned out they were supposed to be at 3741 Landau Lane, an entirely different house down the block. The agents left, raided the correct house and then returned to apologize. The lead agent gave the family his business card and left the family, according to their Supreme Court petition, in “stunned disbelief.”
Martin and Cliatt sued the federal government for, among other things, false imprisonment, trespass and intentional infliction of emotional distress — and lost. A provision in the Federal Tort Claims Act immunizes government officials when they perform “discretionary functions,” and the lower courts held that the tactical choices that led to the wrong-house raid were discretionary.
But what’s discretionary about finding the right house? Or, as an incredulous Justice Neil Gorsuch said at oral argument last week, “Yeah, you might look at the address of the house before you knock down the door.”
Last week I had the privilege of writing a short essay to accompany a photo shoot of Trump’s cabinet. Our photo team did a spectacular job of capturing Trump’s team, and for my part, I tried to explain the sharply different ways in which Republicans and Democrats interpret the cabinet’s devotion to Donald Trump:
Trump’s critics — and I am one — look at the lineup and see, in essence, a group of people that bears far more resemblance to a collection of North Korean generals than it does to a traditional American cabinet.
And for good reason. Trump’s cabinet meetings often feature its members publicly showering the president with praise, sometimes in the most absurd terms.
Pam Bondi, the attorney general, said in one cabinet meeting that Trump was “overwhelmingly elected by the biggest majority.” Brooke Rollins, the agriculture secretary, said, “What you have assembled in your vision is a turning point and an inflection point in American history.” Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, said, “What you’re doing now I think is a great service to our country but ultimately to the world.”
There has been little indication that these cabinet members exercise any independent judgment. Instead, they conform to Trump’s worldview and to Trump’s whims.
Rubio is one of the worst offenders. Before Trump’s rise, he developed a reputation as an independent strategic thinker, committed to America’s global leadership. And now he’s the caretaker of a shrinking State Department who has turned into Trump’s willing accomplice as Trump undermines American credibility and destroys American alliances.
But where Trump’s critics see a wannabe dictator and his toadies, Trump’s supporters see something else. They see a commander and his generals. They see warriors.
