Hiring hostages.

But you yourself supported such a deal just a few days after the massacre.
What has changed?

I've explained this more than once. If after the massacre they had been offered a deal of all the prisoners for all the hostages, it would have had a chance of being accepted. Today it is not accepted. Beyond that, my assumption then was that they were not going out to eliminate Hamas and there was no point in another tasteless and odorless Operation Protective Edge. But if they decided to go out and sacrificed hundreds and thousands of casualties, then they should do it and not throw away the achievements and leave us with another Protective Edge that required so many sacrifices.

Thank you,
Why is it that soldiers who will be killed by Hamas's reconstruction are not a consideration?
And so-and-so and unknown people who will be murdered in terrorist attacks?

How do you choose who will live?

Why are soldiers sent to die to save civilians? There is a division of tasks among the citizens of the country. Each one gives 3 years and more reserves in turn, so that the rest can live a peaceful and normal civilian life. Therefore, the soldiers' calculation is less relevant than that of the citizens. The army's role is to ensure that the citizens can live in security and peace. If Hamas controls 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 will not be able to live. The indicator is not how many people will die, but whether we can lead a normal civilian life. That is the goal of the war.
The current war has claimed the lives of many hundreds of soldiers and thousands of physically and mentally injured, while the number of civilians it has saved is zero (how many civilians have died in recent years from Hamas in Gaza?). So was it worth it? Yes, because the goal is to prevent the daily alarms, the threats of terror and massacre, and the disruption of the peace of life in the enclave.

Why do you assume that continued fighting will lead to the collapse of Hamas? It doesn't really seem like the higher echelons have any kind of plan for anything.

I'm not assuming, I'm just raising a possibility. Instead of losing the war, we're going down a path where there's a chance of winning, even if it's not certain. I think there's a plan, and it's not very sophisticated. Just keep killing them over and over until they break. Just like Hamas' plan, which actually works.

Hi, I would appreciate an explanation regarding this section (I assume there are problems with this as well, and this was written only as a prelude to the problems that follow, anyway). I would appreciate an explanation and expansion on the subject of ransoming prisoners at a price higher than the market price, the risk of releasing terrorists in exchange for a ransom in cash, etc.
I am referring to the section: “I will add that the problem is not the soldiers who will fall nor the terrorists who will be released” written in the first message.
Thank you.

The ransom of prisoners beyond their blood is not a matter for discussion. This is not said in relation to states but in relation to helpless communities. What we decide is “their blood” in this matter. The principle of beyond their blood is not a halakhic principle whose boundaries need to be clarified, but rather common sense, and it should be treated as such. I see no point in going into further detail, 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 kidnapped for the sake of victory, or to put it more politely: From your perspective, should we not return the kidnapped so that we can remain in control of Gaza?
And if so, do you think Israeli society will be able to rise up and recover without us returning the kidnapped?
Would you tell the families of the kidnapped and the Israeli public that you decided to give up the kidnapped in order to remain in Gaza as a politician, and if not, why do you think Smotritz and Ben Gvir don't say that?

The question of what is said and what the public will accept is a technical question. Of course, you don't set a policy to save 100 people (a large number of whom are corpses). Since when does a country mortgage its future and security to a terrorist organization because it is holding hostages?
This is what the government does even if it doesn't say it explicitly (not everything needs to be said explicitly), and I'm completely with it on this.
Society will manage to recover, in my opinion. Time forgets everything. The current coalition will not be accepted whether there is a deal or not. The rift has nothing to do with the deal. This is just petty demagoguery. Will society manage to emerge from the rift that exists within it, without any connection to the hostages? I don't know.

Congratulations
We would be happy to have a regular column on the matter

By the way, is there a legal basis for releasing terrorists?
What is the logic in a certain person evading the law just because his relatives kidnapped someone? Why does one prisoner who committed a criminal or security offense go free without any trial, and another prisoner has to stay in prison because no one demanded his release?

Here's from Sharky's Twitter: https://x.com/yaircherki/status/1879235449065296362
Exactly what I wrote here: If they hadn't gone to war, then there would have been logic in a hostage deal for all the prisoners. But now giving up all the achievements for a few hostages and a few corpses is crazy.
By the way, suddenly the right is also discovering the wonders of refusal. Interesting, isn't it?