After a series of major successes in the war against Hamas – the assassination of the leader of Hamas’s political arm Ismail Haniyeh, the destruction of large portions of the Hamas tunnel network, the capture of the Gaza-Egypt border, and the rescue of several hostages – Israel faced its biggest setback in months with the murder of six hostages, including the American citizen Hersh Goldberg-Polin. This horrific event, occurring mere days before IDF forces reached the hostages’ location, has reinvigorated the loud calls for a ceasefire and a hostage deal. Left-wing Israelis and foreign governments have led the charge, bolstered by a mainstream media that has fully embraced the ceasefire narrative.  

Protests have roiled Tel Aviv since the hostage deaths were announced, while the nation’s largest public sector union attempted a general strike before being shut down by courts. The United Kingdom, represented by ceasefire-advocate Foreign Minister David Lammy, has suspended dozens of arms transfers to Israel in a bid to halt the fighting. Media outlets and commentators went so far as to blame Netanyahu for the Hamas-committed murders, arguing that he was at fault for not securing a deal to end the war – due entirely, according to these writers, to his attempt to survive politically. President Biden himself lent credence to this idea, saying on Monday that the Israeli prime minister had not done enough to release the hostages. 

Netanyahu’s purported intransigence in making a deal with Hamas revolves around control of the Philadelphi Corridor, a strip of land that serves as the border between Gaza and Egypt. The bridging proposal crafted by the Biden administration and agreed to by Israel in May did not include IDF presence in this strategic zone, as Israel did not then control it. Now, as Israel holds the Philadelphi Corridor and has begun to dismantle Hamas’s supply lines, it has become necessary to retain a military presence there. The White House has continued to push for a deal under the previous terms, seeking to force Israel’s hand with a fait accompli. So far, Netanyahu has resisted. But the pressure is intensifying. Is the Philadelphi Corridor really worth it? Do the ceasefire advocates have the better of the argument? 

In short, those who argue against retaining Israeli presence in the border area and for a hostage deal are entirely wrong. Retention of the Philadelphi Corridor is of paramount importance for Israeli national security because the border between Gaza and Egypt is the lifeline for Hamas. It is riddled with massive tunnel infrastructure intended to allow for transfer of goods and people back and forth across the border. Given the Hamas control of Gaza, those goods are generally weapons, ammunition, or other military materiel, while the people could be either Hamas fighters and leadership or, potentially, Israeli hostages. If Israel allows this sector of Gaza to fall back into Hamas hands, the war in Gaza will never reach a satisfactory outcome and the Iranian-backed terror regime will live to fight another day. And Netanyahu is not the only one who believes this is true: a majority of the Israeli public agrees that withdrawal from the Philadelphi Corridor is a non-starter in any agreement with Hamas. Still, there are arguments against this position that must be addressed. 

One such argument, proffered by many in the Israeli security establishment, claims that the IDF could always return to Philadelphi if needed in the future. Returning to a combat zone and retaking hard-won territory is difficult, and it only gets harder as time goes on. Israelis should know. They withdrew from much of the West Bank after the Oslo Accords in 1993; returning to shut down the Second Intifada was very costly. Israel left Lebanon after the war in 2006, only to see Hezbollah grow far stronger, entrench itself within the Lebanese government, and attack Israel repeatedly, only intensifying after October 7. Returning to Lebanon to defeat Hezbollah now would be an enormous challenge, but one Israel may have to face. Of course, Israel also left Gaza entirely in 2005, only going back now and then to ‘mow the lawn’ and take out Hamas targets. The world has seen what horrors that produced. Even restarting the current war after the initial (and only) hostage deal last November was an uphill battle against international opinion. 

Others argue that controlling the Philadelphi Corridor simply isn’t all that important as a war aim for Israel. They suggest that since this presence was not a condition of previous ceasefire proposals, its inclusion now is unfair. First, previous proposals agreed to by Israel and rejected by Hamas occurred before IDF control over the area, explaining its earlier non-inclusion. Second, cutting off an enemy’s supply lines or means of escape and reinforcement – which is what the border with Egypt is for Hamas – is one of the primary objectives of any war. It would be a dereliction of duty for the IDF to simply surrender the corridor after exerting so much effort to capture it. Third, if Hamas is allowed to rearm and retrench in Gaza, it will never be eradicated. On the contrary, it will see this as a triumph and will use it to gain further support both from the Palestinian people and its sponsor in Tehran. An emboldened, empowered Hamas, which would be the end result of an Israeli evacuation from the Gaza-Egypt border, would be an existential threat to Israel’s security. 

One of the most common contentions of Netanyahu’s opponents at home and abroad is that the release of the hostages must be prioritized over all else. They argue that Israel must agree to a ceasefire deal to save these innocents at any cost, especially after the recent executions. Besides the absurdity of pressuring Israel – the sole party that has repeatedly accepted ceasefire deals – instead of Hamas, there are several things wrong with this idea. Hamas is not a good faith actor and should not be treated as such. It has not committed to releasing living hostages, Jewish hostages, or those at highest risk. It has lied repeatedly throughout this conflict and is led by a sadistic mass murderer. At the same time, any hostage deal creates perverse incentives that will inevitably come back to hurt Israel even more in the future. Ransoming hostages, especially at a high price and without defeating the hostage-takers, merely incentivizes more hostage-taking. The kidnappings on October 7 were themselves a product of an earlier hostage deal, where more than 1000 Palestinian prisoners – including the now-leader of Hamas, Yahya Sinwar – were swapped for a single Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. The cost of that deal in Israeli lives has been steep. As critical as the life of every single hostage is, long-term national security interests matter more. 

And that is the test of statesmanship that Benjamin Netanyahu now faces. Will he make the difficult, but correct, choice to prioritize his nation’s interests in the long run? Or will he cave in the face of massive domestic and international pressure and put political expediency above all? 

Statesmanship requires that one make the hard choice and put country before popularity, national interest before self-interest, and the foundations of the future over the whims of the present. Most politicians fail this test, but the ones who pass are those history remembers and celebrates. Politicians who follow public opinion wherever it leads sacrifice the permanent interests of the nation at the altar of convenience. This is not statesmanship, and it endangers the patrimony that leaders are meant to safeguard. Edmund Burke, the famed 18th century conservative thinker, discussed this with respect to political representation, writing: “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.” Statesmen are not mere tribunes of the people, but men of judgment who take into account the long-term interests of the nation as a whole when making tough choices, particularly about security matters.  

Benjamin Netanyahu now faces such a decision. He has to choose between two options that are increasingly mutually exclusive: either a hostage deal that ensures Hamas’s survival or victory in the war against antisemitic terrorism. There is only one correct choice here, the one that secures Israel’s future as a nation. We shall see if Netanyahu passes this test of statesmanship; the fate of his nation may well depend on it.