US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meet at the White House in Washington, US, 4 February 2025. Photo: Elizabeth Franz/Reuters
Donald Trump’s promises to release hostages in Gaza caused a loud international outcry, but “hell” did not break loose as the former US president had predicted. This was reported by The Jerusalem Post.
Promises and reality
Even before taking office, Trump said that if the hostages were not released by 20 January, “they will pay a hell of a price”. However, on the day of the deadline, some of the hostages were released, which gave him the opportunity to declare that the goal had been achieved.
The latest threat was made on Monday, when Trump insisted that if all hostages were not released by Saturday at noon, the ceasefire should be cancelled and “let hell break loose”.
Netanyahu’s reaction and summary of events
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, apparently unwilling to remain in the shadow of Trump’s rhetoric, made a similar statement after the government meeting. However, in the end, the ceasefire remained in force, and only three hostages were released.
Trump, who realised that unfulfilled threats undermined his credibility, was quick to shift the responsibility to Israel, saying that further decisions were now up to it.
“Israel must decide what to do with the 12:00 deadline to release ALL hostages. The United States will support any decision they make!” Trump wrote on his social media account.
Diplomatic flexibility or loss of trust?
Unfulfilled threats can have serious consequences for international politics. Some experts believe that such rhetoric only emboldens US enemies and may encourage them to take bolder actions.
On the other hand, such behaviour can be interpreted as flexibility in negotiations. After all, even if Trump did not carry out his threats, his pressure led to the partial release of the hostages.
In the US, the reaction to the events is mixed. Trump’s supporters see his statements as a show of strength, regardless of their implementation. However, empty threats may eventually reduce the credibility of his words and call into question the effectiveness of his policy in international relations.
