On the emotional argument in the hostage deal
In the podcast with Daniel Doshi, you presented a critical and dismissive position (as usual) towards emotional arguments in favor of a hostage deal.
1. I asked, what non-emotional arguments could there be on the side supporting the deal?
I mean, that’s the essence of the discussion.
The sides of the debate:
Should we not negotiate with terrorism for reasons of future security/national honor/preventing motivation for future kidnappings, etc. = rational argument.
Or now worrying about the kidnapped, those details that were abandoned = an emotional argument.
Is there another, supposedly rational argument in favor of a deal?
It is clear that cold calculation would prefer to talk about
Security, not about saving details.
2. Even the reasoning of: “No doubt excludes certainty,” etc., which supposedly feel rational, are ultimately emotional.
Because what is that certainty? Saving the lonely.
That is, we must spare them and rescue the poor who are certainly in danger.
3. What rational argument can the party supporting the deal formulate?
I heard a lawyer on the radio this morning saying that there is a sentence in the law book: The state will take care of a citizen in trouble and captivity.
But it is certainly weak and sounds ridiculous, compared to the counter-arguments that talk about public safety.
Will we cling to some vague formulation and in its name surrender to terrorism?!
4. Even a seemingly rational person can connect with this kind of emotional argument.
Even in the face of public safety concerns,
The pity, the concern – this is a good reason to support their release.
The feeling is that the heaviest weight that can be placed against opponents of the deal is supposedly emotional arguments, but which certainly provoke thought and basic human intuition.
We are morally obligated to care for the dozens of our people who are suffering and groaning.
In conclusion,
I emphasize, if you demand to cut off all emotion in the discussion, you will definitely only be left with the side that opposes the deal.
And maybe that’s true?
But there doesn’t seem to be room for any significant ambiguity in this discussion.
Every citizen in the country, including the most rational ones, and even those who oppose the deal,
We understand that there is a second side. And there is room for debate on the matter.
Despite the fact that this is a side made of 100% emotion
My conclusion: Even an argument/side in a debate made entirely of emotional arguments
– Plays an important and necessary role in the discussion.
A strange, almost delusional message.
Why do you think the only argument in favor of releasing the hostages is emotion? Is there no value in releasing innocent hostages? We have no responsibility for them? What is this nonsense? The emotion I was talking about is the attitude that takes this argument as absolute and does not understand that there is a second side. This absoluteness is based on emotions.
And why do you think that if the only argument is emotional, that necessarily means it should be taken into account? So there is no argument in favor and that’s it.
Delusional.
5. The idea of destroying Hamas is a bluff, because Hamas is much more of an ideology than a regime, and destroying it is about the same as saying that it would be possible to destroy Zionism through a military operation. Therefore, continuing to fight will not really help us fulfill the mission of destroying Hamas. So it is better to bring the hostages and then move on to the real solution: transfer.
It's a shame you don't just refer to the source. Why recycle these immortal wisdom phrases over and over again?
Zionism can be collapsed by a military operation.
Israel is of course much more powerful than Hamas and Zionism is a much deeper and more established ideology than the Nakba (or whatever it is), so the operation that would be required would be much more difficult. But the US, for example, could do it quite easily if it was determined. I think the Israelis would be even less stubborn than the Gazans. After Azrieli collapses and all the prime ministers and the army are eliminated, we will all voluntarily emigrate to Uganda. There is a chance that this will happen when gel polish is no longer available.
I am not, of course, saying that Zionist fantasies can be eradicated in Uganda. But Zionism where there is some threat that its goals will be realized.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
