Why Hamas Won’t Surrender

Dictatorships, like Hamas in Gaza, don’t just lose wars when they’re defeated on the battlefield. They lose everything.

One Friday evening, nearly a year ago, I was up late, aimlessly toggling between headlines. As Friday night slipped into Saturday morning, disturbing photos and videos began to percolate into my feed. Limp bodies lying in pools of blood beside bus stops and cars. I started to see rumors that Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization based in the Gaza Strip, had infiltrated into southern Israel.

As the hours wore on, the horrifying picture out of Israel became clearer and a few realities set in. First, this was an assault unprecedented in both scale and depravity. Second, because of the nature of the attack, Israel’s military response would be extraordinarily severe.

Hamas and its allies murdered around 1,200 Israelis and internationals on October 7, 2023. Others would later be killed in captivity.

A year out, 101 hostages remain unaccounted for in Gaza—many are feared dead. Israel’s retaliatory campaign has killed roughly 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza—including thousands of Hamas militants.

There is a legitimate debate regarding a ceasefire: Will it end the bloodshed and provide much-needed relief to the besieged Gaza Strip and Israelis living under the specter of Hamas rockets? Or will it simply prolong an inevitable return to hostilities? Likewise, there are genuine questions as to whether continuing the war against Hamas is inimical to the goal of returning the remaining hostages alive.

But there is another way the war could end, even though it isn’t discussed as often: Hamas could surrender.

It is the central question that needs to be answered in both Ukraine and the Middle East. A clear, coherent, and unified response is far from forthcoming. As a result, authoritarians take advantage of this lack of strategic clarity, and conflicts burn on with no end in sight. Bret Stephens makes the case in The New York Times that, “Wars, once entered, need to be fought through to an unequivocal victory. That’s a point Americans have chosen to ignore in recent years, and not to our benefit."

2. The politics of freedom

America has always had two competing definitions of freedom. The first surrounds the idea of the freedom of people to choose who rules them. The second revolves around the idea of having the freedom to reject being ruled. In the final episode of The Atlantic podcast “Autocracy in America,” Anne Applebaum and Peter Pomerantsev examine how freedom can be used to attack the very democratic institutions that help preserve it. In the process, they also investigate how this dynamic can breed nihilism and apathy, and how those feelings are steering democracies like America toward autocracy.

3. Drones warfare is evolving fast; democracies’ defenses are lagging behind

Drones have proven to be a cost-effective way to attack Russian positions and save Ukrainian lives on the frontlines. A single drone can cost as little as $1000. The problem, however, is that they are just as cost-effective for adversaries like China and Iran and its proxies. The cost of developing defenses against drone technology far exceeds the cost of drone innovation. Iran’s drone strike against Israel in April, for instance, cost nearly $100 million compared to the $2 billion it cost Israel to defend against it. In the long-term, these are losing numbers.

4. Russia offers more problems for Africa than solutions

US troops officially withdrew from Niger just a few weeks ago, taking with them a counterterrorism infrastructure that sought to deter jihadist groups responsible for much of the dysfunction and violence plaguing the greater Sahel region. In the resulting vacuum, Russia’s Wagner Group has offered themselves up as a better alternative to secure the region, capitalizing on America’s exit to erode confidence in democratic nations. The reality is that Russia is failing to stem jihadist violence. But with American influence in the region waning, Africans have little choice but to turn to Wagner mercenaries and the dictators that support them.

5. Substantive disagreement is meant to be uncomfortable—CBS should know

Journalist and author Ta-Nehisi Coates has been making the rounds on talk shows across America promoting his new book “The Message.” In an interview with CBS Mornings, co-anchor Tony Dokoupil pressed Coates on his one-sided account of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The exchange was sharp but respectful. Coates later said he did not take offense, yet an internal disagreement broke out into a public controversy. No matter one's personal views on the subject, the exchange was a textbook example of good journalism and sensible disagreement on a topic few have been able to engage substantively and respectfully on.

Waging Cognitive War

An interview with Constantine Nicolaidis and Catherine Terranova on a new domain of warfare in the aftermath of October 7.

By Sohan Mewada — October 3, 2024

This week, Cambodian dissidents and activists will be gathering in Washington, D.C. to peacefully call on the Cambodian government to withdraw from the Cambodia-Laos-Vietnam Development Triangle Area (CLV-DTA) initiative.

Join them as they advocate for their territorial integrity and national sovereignty.

Rally Details:

Friday, October 11, 10am - 2pm: Constitution Garden Plaza

Saturday, October 12, 10am - 11:15am: The White House.

Sunday October 13, 10 am - 2 pm: Royal Embassy of Cambodia

Monday October 14, 10 am - 2 pm: Royal Embassy of Cambodia