Follow us on social

Israelis demonstrate against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government and call for the release of hostages in Gaza, amid the Israel-Hamas conflict, in Tel Aviv, Israel, August 10, 2024

Have Americans held by Hamas become an afterthought?

Perhaps we aren't pressuring Biden enough to do all he can to ensure US citizens return home

Analysis | Middle East

As Israel waits for Iran and Hezbollah to retaliate after it assassinated Hamas’ political chief in Tehran, and the U.S. presidential race dominates domestic attention spans, a crucial issue risks fading from view: American hostages are still held by Hamas in Gaza.

Just yesterday, Hamas’ military wing claimed that an Israeli hostage was killed and two others injured in an Israeli airstrike.

While the U.S. has shown its resolve in securing the release of Americans unjustly detained abroad — most recently in high-profile prisoner swaps with Russia — six Americans remain captive in Gaza. The Biden administration is making a final push to prevent regional war and secure the release of hostages, while Hamas refuses to attend talks and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is more intransigent than ever.

However, it’s Netanyahu’s government that Washington has the most leverage over, making it critical for President Biden to prioritize the hostage issue.

A White House readout of President Biden’s call with Netanyahu two weeks ago mentioned support for Israel against threats from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran but made no mention of the hostages. While readouts are often vague and hostage negotiations typically occur behind the scenes — and there can be reasons to keep them out of the spotlight — one cannot help but wonder if the hostages’ fate has become an afterthought in Washington.

It is certainly an afterthought for Netanyahu, who has shown little concern for the hostages, whether they are Israeli or from the other two dozen nations where Hamas’ captives hail from.

On October 7, Hamas took 10 Americans hostage. Three of them — Itay Chen, Gadi Haggai, and Judith Weinstein Haggai — were killed that same day.

Two others, a mother and daughter from Illinois, Judith and Natalie Raanan, were visiting family in Israel when they were abducted by Hamas. They were later released after negotiations between the U.S., Israel, Qatar, and Hamas. During this early phase of the war, before most of Gaza was destroyed and before the death toll soared to nearly 40,000, there was hope that this release would be the start of more diplomacy and possibly a ceasefire. That didn’t happen.

It is believed that six U.S. hostages remain in Gaza. Israel also has a responsibility to these hostages, who either lived in Israel or held dual Israeli citizenship. However, an American is an American, regardless of their second passport or where they choose to live. These hostages have been abandoned by two countries at once.

In November, President Biden vowed, “I will not stop until they are all released.” In December, after learning of Gad Haggai’s death and again on the 100th day of captivity in mid-January, he renewed this pledge. During the State of the Union in March, he promised the hostages’ families, “We will not rest until we bring their loved ones home.”

In May, Biden proposed a three-phase ceasefire plan, with the release of hostages as a key part of the first phase lasting six weeks, stating, “There are American hostages who would be released at this stage, and we want them home.”

Over 10 weeks have passed since that proposal, and Israel is further from a ceasefire than ever. Netanyahu has repeatedly ignored U.S. red lines, rejected calls for less deadly “surgical operations,” and resisted allowing aid into Gaza or pursuing a ceasefire in good faith. He and his far right-wing cabinet members remain committed to “total victory” against Hamas, which even his own military deems unrealistic.

The recent Israeli assassination of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in Iran has made diplomacy between Israel and Hamas even more distant. Achieving a ceasefire in Gaza remains the best chance to begin bringing all the hostages, including Americans, home. But Netanyahu has shown little interest in ending the war, and the release of the hostages is clearly not a priority for him. In fact, he may view it as counterproductive, as it could undermine his goal of prolonging the war.

Hamas and its supporters also have agency. They chose to take hostages and commit murder, which ignited the conflict, and they hold the power to release the hostages. However, they are unlikely to do so without receiving something substantial in return. Securing the release of U.S. hostages is always a fraught task. Russia detained journalists, a world-class athlete, and private citizens, demanding the release of arms dealers, fraudsters, and assassins in exchange.

Despite this stark moral disparity, it is the president’s duty to ensure that Americans held hostage are brought home. In the case of Gaza, a ceasefire — a step toward peace — would not only secure the hostages’ release but also save many more Palestinian and Israeli lives.

President Biden must recognize that the current strategy toward Netanyahu’s government is failing. He should hold Netanyahu accountable for jeopardizing the stability of the region and U.S. citizens’ lives. With his remaining months in office, Biden should press the Israeli government to negotiate a ceasefire and initiate, if not already in place, direct negotiations with Hamas to secure the release of American hostages. They have been held long enough.


Israelis demonstrate against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government and call for the release of hostages in Gaza, amid the Israel-Hamas conflict, in Tel Aviv, Israel, August 10, 2024. REUTERS/Ricardo Moraes

Analysis | Middle East
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.