Hostages could have come home a year earlier, former Israeli negotiator says
Nitzan Alon argued that the war could have been shortened without sacrificing its main strategic gains, in remarks reported from a Washington Institute discussion.
A former Israeli general at the center of the hostage negotiations says Israel could have brought its captives home roughly a year earlier without giving up its main strategic gains, challenging the argument that the war had to last as long as it did.
Nitzan Alon made the assessment at a Washington Institute discussion on October 2, according to reports by N12 and Israel National News. His argument was not that recovering the hostages could be set aside. He regarded their return as a condition for ending the high-intensity fighting, but said that condition could have been reached much sooner.
The retired major general's position gives the criticism weight: the institute identifies him as the military's point person for hostage negotiations after the October 7 attack. His earlier posts included leadership of Central Command and the Military Intelligence Operations Division.
The forum brought together Israeli, Palestinian and American perspectives ahead of the attack's third anniversary. Participants included former Palestinian negotiating adviser Ghaith al-Omari, former Israeli lawmaker Ksenia Svetlova and veteran American diplomat Dennis Ross. David Makovsky moderated the event.
According to Israel National News, Alon said an earlier end could have saved lives on both sides and allowed some captives who died to return alive. He also criticized political slogans about victory as an inadequate basis for decisions about ending the fighting.
His comments were qualified on another important point. Asked about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's calculations, he said he could not know what was in the prime minister's mind. He described a possible mixture of strategic, ideological, political and personal considerations rather than demonstrating a single motive for a specific decision.
N12 likewise reported his call for realistic leadership and his belief that the war's principal achievements could have been obtained with a shorter campaign. Those are judgments from a former participant in the negotiations, not proof that every proposed agreement would have been implemented by every party.
The distinction is essential to the international debate over hostage diplomacy. A negotiator's assessment can illuminate choices that were available, but establishing a missed opportunity requires the terms offered at the time, the response of each side and the practical conditions for carrying out an exchange. The publicly reported remarks do not supply that complete record.
Alon's intervention nevertheless poses a direct question about the relationship between military pressure and diplomacy: at what point did continued fighting cease to improve the prospects of bringing people home? His account argues that the point came much earlier. The documentary record of the negotiations, and responses from the decision-makers he criticized, remain necessary to test that conclusion.
