The Kidnappers’ Deal

But I remember you also talked about how the hostages are in real danger compared to the civilians, whose danger is not real, and there is no doubt that outweighs certainty, especially since we can defend ourselves against an attack. So what difference does it make if Hamas demands all the prisoners or additional things?

And if Hamas were to demand that the country be shut down and that we all go abroad? That's also okay? What kind of absurd argument is that?!
There are interests of the state that are not rejected by the whims of a few citizens. But the future and unfulfilled whims of a few other citizens - yes. I'm sure that with two seconds of thinking you would have come to this on your own.

That's exactly it, if Hamas were to demand things that I can't deal with then you're right, but if it demands things that are less convenient for me but I can still deal with them through better defense, what's wrong? It's clear that it will demand something because it has cards, which we don't.

If there was a deal with Hamas that included everyone for everyone and in addition we had to withdraw from all areas of the Gaza Strip, including Philadelphia, would you agree to such a deal?

Absolutely not. It's going back to October 6th.

Previously on this link
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%A1-%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%95/
You wrote in your last response that you agree to a deal under the following conditions:
1. A ceasefire for several months
2. Withdrawal from all areas of the Gaza Strip
3. All for all

It seems that your position has changed since then, hasn't it?

Or maybe the argument is that now that we have captured Philadelphia, it is an achievement that must not be given up, unlike the situation 8 months ago, when we did capture a number of territories but not Philadelphia.

No. There they talked about a temporary exit. Today, that's not an option on the table. A temporary exit that allows us to return is definitely an option. But these are suggestions that only arise in our internal discourse. Mere hallucinations.

I have no position at all on Philadelphia. I lack information about its importance and it has not been defined what will be there instead of the IDF. These are just empty discussions. Like the stupid referendum published yesterday on Kan 11 about leaving Philadelphia.

If we could go out temporarily then, why can't we go out temporarily today? What has changed?

First, I didn't say we could. I said that if a deal was offered that would only require a temporary exit, there would be room for it. Today, that's also true, except that's not what's being offered (except in people's feverish imaginations).
Secondly, in the past there was indeed a break and we returned (in the previous deal). But even then, the return was on a small scale. Today, the world is much more against us and it would be impossible to return, in my opinion. What's more, Hamas is much more intelligent than us, and any deal that is signed will include guarantees that we won't return.

Reminds me of the question that started the discussion. At the beginning of the war you wrote, “If we were offered a deal of all the Hamas prisoners we have in exchange for all the hostages, I would support it without hesitation.” And later you wrote, “I am against a deal. Period.” Why did you change your mind?

As for the false claim that your opinion has not changed, I would appreciate an answer to the following question: Do you think the readers of the site are stupid?

Let us also recall that you wrote in column 607 that “By the way, I, for example, opposed the Shalit deal but support the current deal”. How does that reconcile with “I am against a deal. Period. It doesn't matter even if we find everyone dead. In my opinion, there is no need to negotiate at all.”?

Gabriel, since I answered the questions at the beginning of your message, I will only address the latter. It is difficult for me to make a categorical statement about all my readers. I have the impression that the vast majority of them are not really dumb. But there is at least one about whom I can state without hesitation that he is indeed dumb. But let me not mention his identity.
Replyer, I also answered your question. It is worth reading and thinking a little before asking. Don't take an example from the idiot above you.

Rabbi, you used to be much more patient with commenters, both with stubborn, ticklish idiots and with those who write accusations and insults.

I think that following the confusion created among readers and the multitude of questions in the Rabbi's mind, it is appropriate for the Rabbi to dedicate an article justifying his position against the deal versus the position of the supporters.
Thank you