Kidnapping deal
In column 607 you argued that future considerations are not the heart of the matter in the issue of releasing the hostages, and that is because in any case it will be impossible to collapse Hamas. Your argument was that you are against the hostage deal, even though the hostage aspect is the most important, and that is because releasing the hostages now would harm the release of other hostages. We are a few months after the column, and several things have happened: (1) A deal was indeed made, and so far 80% of the hostages have already been released. (2) We continue to harm Hamas, although not to collapse it. (3) There are plans to occupy Gaza
In light of these things, it seems that if we continue to ignore right-wing aspects (future considerations), continue to claim that Hamas cannot be overthrown, and continue to concentrate on the kidnapped individuals (and claim that their return is the main goal of the war), the obvious conclusion is that it is worthwhile and appropriate to make a deal for all the kidnapped in exchange for a cessation of hostilities (continuing in the spirit of Article 607).
Do you agree with this? We ask because I have seen in several places your opposition to any deal (since all deals include the cessation of fighting, either completely or for an extended period of time).
Indeed, a lot of water has flowed in the Kishon since these words were written. I never imagined that the government would have such courage and determination to continue fighting in the face of all the pressures. Today, in my opinion, there is a chance of defeating Hamas, although this is far from clear. This will depend largely on continued determination and the intelligence of managing the matter (something that the government and the army, in my opinion, do not excel at).
I'm not at all sure that we have the option of accepting all the hostages even in exchange for the moon. I tend to think that even if we surrender, it won't happen, but in my opinion, even if it does happen, we must not surrender. Partial deals are a local matter and I don't have a blanket position on it. But if it's possible to gain a few hostages at a price that isn't irreversible, there's definitely room for that.
Why not actually accept a surrender deal in exchange for all the kidnapped (if that's possible, which is obviously not true)? Assuming that we ignore future considerations, that's the obvious thing to do. In other words, it seems that the only way to oppose a full deal that includes a cessation of war is to address future considerations (which of course include future considerations of other organizations that will see that if we kidnap civilians, we surrender).
If you choose to ignore these considerations, you can of course make any decision you want.
Of course, I'm just asking your opinion based on the developments that have occurred. After all, in column 607 you said that future considerations should be ignored, and I wonder if you still hold that position. If so, why not make a deal for everyone in exchange for surrender?
I did not write there and I never thought that future considerations should be ignored. On the contrary, the main considerations here deal with the future. My argument there was that future dangers from the terrorists we will release are not a central consideration and it is certainly not correct to measure the number of casualties. Consideration of future security is the reason we went to this war and the main reason for this is that it is justified.
Okay, so if future considerations are important, what do you see that has changed between the time the order was written and now, from this aspect?
It seems, but I may be wrong, that at the time of writing the column you thought that the future considerations of Hamas' recovery and the understanding of the extremist Arab world that we surrender if we kidnap civilians are things that will happen one way or another (because we will surrender anyway), and therefore it is worth making a deal and stopping the war. However, now that we see that the war is back, these considerations have become relevant again - there is the ability to eliminate Hamas. Hence, it may be worth going all the way, in order to prevent the future difficulty that comes from surrender.
If I am indeed right, then the justification for opposing the hostage deal is due to future considerations of eliminating Hamas and establishing our status as those who eliminate anyone who kidnaps our civilians, a justification that did not reasonably exist at the time of writing the column because of the thought that we would not be able to defeat Hamas in any case.
Do I agree with your position?
Absolutely. That's what I wrote.
I remember that you once wanted to be sent a piece by Avi Sagi about the hostage deal, so here I found one in which he says that it is clear that a deal needs to be made:
https://youtube.com/shorts/EDTzz5zncQU?si=OTgl1uslLtztAlXn
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer