How will Israel control Hamas if there is a ceasefire?

Not for the frst time there is optimism in senior US diplomatic circles about a potential ceasefire in Gaza. It has been said before and then nothing happened. But this time, because of what is being described as "a very generous" offer by Israel on the number of hostages to be released, there is more hope. But what if there is an agreed ceaaefire of, say, 40 days? What will happen at the end of that time? Israel has pretty well made it clear it will be back to normal and attacks to eliminate Hamas will restart. But also during those 40 days, Israel is going to come under huge pressure from around the world, and particularly from the US, to extend the ceasefire and then make it permanent. In other words, Israel will be pressurised to give up its main objective which is to remove Hamas from the planet. If I was Hamas I'd go for the deal being offered in the expectation that President Biden will do everything he can to stop the Israelis from carrying on the war once the ceasefire is over. But Binyamin Netanyahu is never going to agree to this, and Hamas must know that. However, its leaders down underground in southern Gaza might just gamble that now is the right time to do a deal. This will put Netanyahu in a spot. He has offered the "generous" deal - only 33 hostages to be freed at this stage - and can hardly turn down Hamas if its leaders come back and say ok. He will no doubt look at the small print and if Hamas conditions acceptance to a much longer or perpetual ceasefire, then he will have no choice but to reject the whole deal. But if he does, the hostage families will denounce him and his government. Netanyahu wants to survive as prime minister, so he will have to come up with a pretty convincing argument for reneging on the deal he has offered.

Hostages' lives in Gaza are a bargaining chip

Trading is going on for the release of the 100 or so hostages still believed to be alive in Gaza. It seems appalling but it's the reality of trying to do business with a designated terrorist organisation. For some time Israel has stipulated that in return for a six-week ceasefire it wanted 40 hostages freed. Now, according to the latest reports, that figure has come down to 33, most of whom would be women, the sick and the elderly. "You get six weeks of no fighting and we get 33 hostages." It's an unpleasant business. And think of the poor hostages, knowing that instead of having a team of Israeli special forces suddenly arriving and freeing them all, they have to wait in turn while their government plays the numbers game with their kidnappers. If the 33 figure is accurate, then around 70 hostages, presumably mostly younger Israelis, men and women, boys and girls, will have to wait for the next round of trading whenever that might be. But if, in the meantime, the Israel Defence Forces launch their much-anticipated assault on the town of Rafah in the south of Gaza, then the 70 hostages might have to wait a long time before they are freed. Or, the worst scenario, they are never released. Israeli airstrikes are already going on in Rafah, so in some ways you could say that the invasion of the town which is hosting more than a million Palestinian refugees, ousted from their homes in the north and other parts of Gaza, has already begun. Of course it's possible the trading and the bargaining over the hostages may be fruitless. Hamas has yet to reveal whether it's happy to free 33, instead of 40. They are surely likely to hold on until Israel can be persuaded not to invade Rafah at all. There is potentially a total impasse here.

Will the rush of US weapons to Ukraine make a difference?

(My piece in the Spectator this weekend) It’s a race against time for the Kyiv government to make best use of the new batch of American weapons now being assembled for delivery to Ukraine. With the much-delayed American funding available at last, Ukraine will have to build up its defences to withstand a new Russian offensive in the summer and to make enough headway to prove to the US, and in particular a sceptical Donald Trump if he wins the November election, that all this taxpayers’ money is being well spent. Whether the money and weapons will buy victory for Kyiv has to remain in doubt. The Russian invasion force has been making limited but steady territorial gains. But, more crucially, while US Congress wavered for months over approving the multi-billion-dollar aid package for Kyiv, Moscow has been hammering the country’s power infrastructure, turning the lights off for millions of Ukrainians. More than anything else, Ukraine needs air defence systems to counter the barrage of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and armed drones that have succeeded in recent months in getting past existing defences and causing massive destruction. Additional batteries of US Patriot missile launchers should be at the top of the Pentagon’s list. These anti-air missiles have the capability to protect Ukraine’s cities and towns from Russian strikes. But there is no sign of extra Patriot systems being included in the first $1 billion delivery order. The reason is simple. There just aren’t enough available to hand over to Kyiv, so Ukraine will have to make do, at least for the moment, with the single Patriot battery it currently has deployed. This could be a serious weakness at a time when Russian forces are expected to ramp up their air and missile strikes across Ukraine. However, the list of weapons en route to Ukraine include hundreds of thousands of rounds of 155mm and 105mm artillery shells which are the bedrock of battlefield systems in a war where relentless firepower keeps the enemy at bay. At present the Russians have a 10-1 advantage in stocks of artillery rounds. Ukraine lost territory and surrendered strategic towns and villages because of dwindling munition supplies. The first tranche also includes more than 2,000 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, additional munitions for the super-effective High Mobility Rocket Systems (HIMARS), and 200 Bradley infantry fighting vehicles. However, even if, as promised by President Biden, the first batch of new weapons and munitions arrive “within hours”, will they be in time to make a significant difference on the battlefield or has the recent Russian momentum gone too far to be reversed? There is no doubt that the approval of the $61 billion in aid for Kyiv will lift spirits among the Ukrainian soldiers, giving them a better chance at last to fight back against advancing Russian troops and perhaps recapture small areas of eastern Ukraine where they were forced to retreat. However, a sizeable proportion of this huge investment in Ukraine’s survival will be spent on replenishing US stocks of munitions and weapons which had been prioritised for Ukraine’s use. The first US F-16 fighter jets being supplied from Europe are also not expected to be operational until July. Yet there is optimism that the new deliveries of weapons will improve Ukraine’s fortunes. ”The US aid and the new UK military package [worth £500 million and includes air-launched precision-guided Paveway IV bombs] will definitely make a difference on the battlefield by enabling the Ukrainians to protect their critical infrastructure , equalling up the artillery battle of attrition and enabling Ukrainian deep strikes to target Russian logistics in Crimea and elsewhere behind the lines, “said Eric Edelman, a former top defence policy official at the Pentagon. “That being said, it will help the Ukrainians stabilise the front lines and can perhaps prevent the Russians from making large mechanised breakthroughs. But Ukraine is likely to be on the strategic defensive for most of 2024,” he said. “In an ideal world they would use that time to get after their military manpower shortfalls and develop their indigenous defence production so that they might go on the offensive in 2025,” he said. Edelman added a warning. “If Trump is elected [in November], all bets are off. He would be likely to try and pressure the Ukrainians to negotiate, although the only thing [President] Putin seems willing to negotiate is a Ukrainian capitulation,” he said. Other analysts are less hopeful that Ukraine will now be in a position to make a lasting stand against Russia. “It’s difficult to see how this latest aid package is going to shift the balance significantly in Ukraine’s favour,” said Andrew Krepinevich, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former Pentagon official. “Nato does not appear to want to risk providing Ukraine with the support it will need to defeat the Russian invasion and risk Putin escalating the conflict but it fears a Ukrainian defeat. And so the war goes on,” he said. After all the sighs of relief in Washington over the successful passing of the Ukraine aid bill, US officials say the objectives have not changed. But there is less talk of victory for Kyiv. The main focus is to help the Ukrainian military make sufficient gains for the Kyiv government to be in a strong position to achieve a good outcome in a negotiated settlement with Moscow. But Russia will always have the advantage in terms of manpower, munitions and weapons production. The one thing which might make a substantial difference in Putin’s mind is if Ukraine multiplies by a huge amount its attacks on Russia itself and on Russian-annexed Crimea. The revelation that the Pentagon last month secretly sent the longer-range version of the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) to Ukraine appears to demonstrate that Biden has been persuaded to drop his reluctance about sending weapons that could escalate the war. The 190-mile-range ATACMS has already been launched twice to strike deep behind Russian lines. The previously deployed ATACMS has a range of only about 100 miles and fires cluster munitions, not precision-guided missiles. This weapon, more than anything else in the pipeline, might spoil Putin’s day.

What IS going to happen to the Israeli hostages?

How much longer do the more than 100 Israeli hostages have to wait in their Hamas-controlled bunkers, tunnels and apartment prisons in Gaza? They should surely be the priority for the Binyamin Netanyahu government, both in terms of their survival chances and for his political survival as prime minister? The figure of 130 hostages is always given, but the fear is that at least 30 are already dead. How many more will die before a deal is done? The BBC has an agonising interview with one of the hostages who was released in November. The hostage, a woman, recounts the mental trauma and physical suffering she experienced, and no doubt still experiences, and that was after six or so weeks of being held captive in a number of different flats with armed Hamas guards. The remaining hostages have been held for more than six months. Their state of mind and their fear of death, but also their bewilderment over why their government has not managed to get them freed must be overwhelming. The negotiations to release them have made little progress after numerous attempts by the most senior of US, Israeli and Qatari officials. There is obviously little incentive for Hamas to negotiate cooperatively while Israel is threatening to attack Rafah in the south of Gaza where their remaining four combat brigades and leaders are hiding. So who will break first? Netanyahu wants to give nothing to Hamas, understandably, but the problem is that without concesions of some sort, the poor hostages will never be freed. It is a truly agonising time for the hostages and for their families back home.

The attack on the Gaza town of Rafah appears imminent

It has always been the case in modern times that where the television cameras are, that's where the news will be. And moe often than not, the TV cameras can't be everywhere in the world at the same time, so a lot of bad stuff gets unreported while the cameras are concentrated elsewhere. For example, the civil war in Sudan has been going on for a year between the Sudanese armed forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces but we know little of what is going on. There are too many other conflicts for the TV crews to cover. In the same way, the war in Gaza was almost put to one side when Iran and Israel attacked each other. That became the headline news. What went on in Gaza while the world was focusing on the terrifying possibility of an outright war between Israel and Iran was lost in translation. Now Gaza is back in the news big time, with the desperately tragic reports of the Palestinian baby pulled from its dead mother's womb following an Israeli air strike. And the attack on the town of Rafah in the south by the Israel Defence Forces is imminent. Perhaps even next week. One hopes that the IDF will have such strict rules of engagement that Rafah will not be reduced to a pile of concrete rubble. However, after more than six months it is one of the most extraordinary facts that the main leaders of Hamas are still alive and hiding in an underground tunnel or bunker and are still able to mastermind retaliatory strikes against the IDF. AND that more than 100 Israeli hostages are still being held, despite all the firepower and combat experience the IDF has at its disposal and the ingenuity and skills of Mossad and other secretive special agencies. Rafah is truly going to be a momentous battle, and the TV cameras will be watching.

Trump immune from prosecution or (definitely) not?

The wisest judges in the US of A will start considering today all the arguments over whether Donald Trump should enjoy immunity from prosecution. Looking at all the claimed precedents in US legal history where immunity has been discussed, it is truly difficult to see how the federal Supreme Court could conclude anything other than downright rejection of the Trump lawyers' case. But the Supreme Court is a wonderful body of men and women, all appointed by presidential choice, who may have dfferent ideas about the constitution and the role of the president. But basically Trump has been charged with interfering in the US 2020 election and trying to subvert the result, a charge so serious, especially since he was president at the time, that even the most loyal Trump-appointed judge would find it hard to think of any reason why he should be granted immunity. Nevertheless, the ruminations by the Supreme Court today will be absolutely key to what happens in the US in the next seven months. If, as anticipated, the judges come back in June with a unanimous ruling that Trump cannot be given immunity from prosecution, then other trials, even the one about the 2020 election, could go ahead before the 2024 election, and, if so, that would be a devastating blow to Trump's chances of beating Joe Biden. If, somehow, there is a majority ruling in favour of Trump getting immunity, it would be a massive boost to his chances of returning to the White House. It's that simple.

Does China want to warm relations with the US?

Antony Blinken, US secretary of state, is in China in an attempt to improve relations between Washington and Beijing. But is Beijing interested? All the recent signs are that China wants to focus more of its diplomatic efforts in strengthening ties with the very countries that are at the top of Washington's adversary list: Russia, North Korea and Iran. China, too, is on the same potential adversary list, but Washington right now is more interested in persuading Chinese leaders to stop helping Russia in its war against Ukraine. China is not arming Russia as such but is sending weapon components and dual-use systems which are being used to modernise Russian arms factories. So, indirectly, China is supporting Russia in the more than two-year war. Beijing has said in the past that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, including Ukraine, should be respected. No doubt Blinken will throw this at the Chinese leaders he meets. But also no doubt, Beijing will deny helping Russia in its destruction of Ukraine and will underline its wish to see a peaceful settlement. When American and Chinese officials get together, there is a kind of ritual involved where each side has its say but there is very little room for a genuine change of heart or strategy. The ritual is better than silence but one wonders what Blinken will actually achieve during his visit. There are too many disagreements in the Washington and Beijing relationship.