Former Israeli Negotiator Says Hostage Deal Could Have Come a Year Earlier
Retired Maj. Gen. Nitzan Alon, the Israeli army's early point person for hostage negotiations in the Gaza war, said a deal to bring home all Israeli captives could have been reached much earlier than October 2025 but was delayed without need. Al Jazeera
He spoke during a Washington Institute for Near East Policy webcast marking three years since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. The remarks, reported on October 2, 2026, entered the anniversary debate over how Israel sequenced military operations and talks.
His central point was about timing. Alon said Israel could have reached the October 2025 deal point maybe a year earlier, without major harm to the war's other strategic goals. In an earlier account, he said the Gaza war could have ended at least a year earlier. Times of Israel
He made two related claims about decision-making. First, he said Israel's cabinet refused earlier comprehensive deals, meaning deals covering all captives at once. Second, he said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's claim that Israel must achieve total victory before signing a deal was false. In arguing that more captives could have come home alive, Alon disputed Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.
On the human cost, Alon said an earlier deal could have allowed some hostages who were killed or murdered in captivity to return home alive. The October 2025 Israel-Hamas prisoner exchange, held under a ceasefire agreement, a formal halt to fighting, involved the release of nearly 2,000 Palestinians from Israeli jails and 20 Israeli captives from the Gaza Strip.
Alon also called for new, realistic Israeli leadership. Israel National News
The broader context here is a dispute over negotiation method familiar to practitioners. Alon argues that military pressure and a full hostage release could have worked together earlier, and that waiting did not clearly advance the military aims. Netanyahu and his supporters argue the opposite, that steady military pressure was needed to gain better terms. Both views rest on judgments about what Hamas would have accepted and how much leverage Israel held at different moments.
Looking at what this means for institutional accountability, Alon's former role matters. He spoke from inside the negotiation system, not as an outside critic. That gives his view weight in policy circles, even though it is disputed. It does not settle what terms were available in 2024, or at what cost to other goals. It points to documents and testimony for closer review.
In my view, his remarks open a longer reckoning rather than close the case. For diplomats and analysts, the key issues are sequencing, verification, meaning how each side checks the other kept promises, and the choice between phased and all-for-all exchanges. For Israeli domestic politics, the dispute over who blocked which deal, and when, will shape debates over responsibility, leadership, and lessons for future crisis negotiation structures.
