Q&A: Hostage deal.
Hostage deal.
Question
Good evening,
What is your view of the deal that will probably go through, and of the dear hostages who will return, our unfortunate brothers and sisters,
and of the heavy price of the terrorists who will be released, and of the soldiers who will fall as a result of what Hamas will prepare for them.
In short, how does one even begin to approach something this complex?
Answer
First, Iโm not sure it will actually go through. There have already been similar spin campaigns in the past. Until itโs over, itโs not over. Second, I donโt have the details. As for the substance of the matter, as Iโve written more than once in the past, as a rule I oppose any deal in any format whatsoever. Only continued fighting until their unconditional surrender. If the Palestinians agree to some deal, that probably means itโs bad for us.
I would add that the problem is not the soldiers who will fall, nor even the terrorists who will be released. The problem is that we have not achieved the goals of the war, namely the collapse of Hamas. I assume that if there is a deal, the war will not be resumed, and I have almost no doubt that we will never see all the hostages returned (and even among those we do see, there is nothing preventing them from returning all of them to us dead), and in effect the whole war and all the sacrifices were probably in vain. Swords of Iron will become another Protective Edge in the endless cycle of our failed operations that achieve nothing. In another three years weโll again have Gaza under Hamas rule exactly as it was on October 6, and we will have accomplished nothing.
Of course, itโs easy for me to talk, because Iโm not under American pressure. One thing is clear to me: the bad results of such a deal, if it happens, will be used by all those who contributed to it (the hostagesโ families and the various demonstrators) in order to criticize the government for the results of the deal that they themselves brought about. Exactly as in the Gilad Shalit case. The hostagesโ families and the various demonstrators are acting irrationally, together with Hamas and with Trump, to prevent any achievement in this war, and in the end also to prevent the return of the hostages and to drive up the price.
In this case I am completely with Ben Gvir and Smotrich, who are rightly opposed. Unfortunately, it looks pretty hopeless. This is a struggle of emotion against reason, and as usually happens, the right and the religious act with reason, while the secular left is driven by emotion. This is a sad implication of the claim that morality should come from reason and not from emotion, which secular people and leftists generally do not accept. These are the results.
Discussion on Answer
Iโve explained this more than once. If right after the massacre they had offered them a deal of all the prisoners in exchange for all the hostages, there was a chance it would be accepted. Today it wonโt be accepted. Beyond that, my assumption back then was that they were not going out to eliminate Hamas, and there was no point in another pointless, meaningless Protective Edge operation. But if they decided to go in and have already sacrificed hundreds killed and thousands of casualties, then it has to be carried through and not throw the achievements into the trash and leave us with another Protective Edge that demanded so many victims.
Thank you,
Why are soldiers who will be killed because of Hamasโs recovery not a consideration?
And likewise this person and that person who will be murdered in terror attacks?
How do you choose who will live?
Why do we send soldiers to die in order to save civilians? There is a division of roles among the citizens of the state. Everyone gives 3 years and then reserve duty in turn, so that the rest can live calm and normal civilian lives. Therefore the calculation regarding soldiers is less relevant than that regarding civilians. The armyโs role is to ensure that civilians can live in security and peace. If Hamas rules Gaza, the problem is not that a few soldiers or even civilians will be killed, but that there will be parts of the country where people cannot live. The criterion is not how many people will die, but whether we can conduct normal civilian life. That is the goal of the war.
The current war has claimed the lives of many hundreds of soldiers and left thousands physically and mentally wounded, while the number of civilians it has saved is negligible (how many civilians have died in recent years because of Hamas in Gaza?). So was it worth it? Yes, because the goal is to prevent the daily sirens, the threat of terror and massacre, and the disruption of lifeโs peace in the Gaza border area.
Why do you assume that continuing the fighting will bring about Hamasโs collapse? It really doesnโt seem as though the higher levels have any kind of plan for anything.
Iโm not assuming it; Iโm raising it as a possibility. Instead of losing the war, they are going down a path where there is a chance of winning, even if it isnโt certain. In my opinion there is also a plan, and it isnโt very sophisticated. Simply keep killing more and more of them until they break. Exactly like Hamasโs plan, which is actually working.
Hi, ืฉืืื, Iโd be glad for an explanation regarding this passage (I assume there is also a problem with this, and it was written only as an introduction to the problem that follows, in any case). Iโd be glad for an explanation and elaboration on the issue of redeeming captives at a price above market value, the risk in releasing terrorists versus redeeming them with money, etc.
Iโm referring to the passage: โI would add that the problem is not the soldiers who will fall, nor even the terrorists who will be releasedโ that was written in the first message.
Thank you.
Redeeming captives for more than their value is not relevant here. That was not said with regard to states, but with regard to helpless communities. What we decide is their โvalueโ for this purpose. The principle of paying more than their value is not a halakhic principle whose parameters need to be clarified, but plain common sense, and that is how it should be treated. I donโt see any point in elaborating further, because the matter is simple.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1179720227086517&id=100051456511332
Rabbi, is the conclusion that emerges from this that you are willing to sacrifice the hostages for the sake of victory, or in fairer wording: from your perspective, not to bring back the hostages in order for us to remain in control of Gaza?
And if so, do you think Israeli society will manage to rise and recover without bringing back the hostages?
Would you say to the hostagesโ families and to the Israeli public that you decided to give up on the hostages in order to stay in Gaza, if you were a politician? And if not, why do you think Smotrich and Ben Gvir do not say this?
The question of what one says and what the public will accept is a technical one. Substantively, of course one does not determine policy in order to save 100 people (a large portion of whom are bodies). Since when does a state mortgage its future and its security to a terror organization because it is holding hostages?
That is what the government is doing even if it does not say so explicitly (not everything has to be said explicitly), and I am completely with it on this.
Society will recover, in my estimation. Time makes everything fade. The current coalition will not be accepted whether there is a deal or not. The rift has nothing to do with the deal. These are just cheap demagogic slogans. Will society manage to emerge from the rift that exists within it, regardless of the hostages? I donโt know.
More power to you.
Weโd be glad for a properly organized column on the matter.
By the way, from a legal standpoint, is there any basis for releasing terrorists?
What is the logic in a certain person escaping the law just because his relatives kidnapped someone? Why does one prisoner who committed a criminal or security offense go free without any trial, while another prisoner has to remain there in prison because nobody demanded his release?
Here is from Cherkiโs Twitter: https://x.com/yaircherki/status/1879235449065296362
Exactly what I wrote here: if they had not gone to war, then there would have been logic in a hostage deal in exchange for all the prisoners. But now, to give up all the achievements for the sake of a few hostages and a few corpses is absurd.
By the way, suddenly the right too is discovering the wonders of refusal to serve. Interesting, no?
But you yourself supported such a deal just a few days after the massacre.
What changed?