The Kidnappers’ Deal
peace,
I saw that you wrote against the hostage deal, there is an argument that says that if we don’t return the hostages, it will harm social solidarity, it will dismantle nationalism, our infrastructure is that we are one big family, and we care about our brothers and sisters. Regarding the fear that Hamas will return to the same situation, first, if we agree that what was will not be, that is, we changed after October 7th, then the situation will not return, and we will act forcefully as soon as there is an attempt to establish itself. Second, we may be able to remove them from power with the help of Trump’s policies. In short, there are two opinions here that are fighting for nationalism from opposite directions, what do you think about that?
The argument about solidarity is problematic. Because some people are emotional and wrong, should the rational ones surrender? Why shouldn’t the emotional ones care about social cohesion with the rational ones? It is the lack of concern for the security of the state and its citizens that breaks up cohesion, and the hostage deal expresses such a lack of concern.
If we decide and succeed, everything will be great. The question is whether it is possible and if it will happen. We will wait and see. So far it has not worked.
We are not giving in, this is a real consideration and one can of course disagree about it. Both sides say that it will harm nationalism in the long term. The division into emotional and rational is not necessary, it is about value. I understand that there is a disagreement. It seems to me that the main question is, did we change after October 7?
You are not addressing what I wrote. Even signing the deal will harm (and has already harmed) cohesion.
Clearly, there is such a consideration, and the question is whether it is decisive. Taking it as an absolute consideration is emotionalism.
Beyond that, when you make a second-order argument, it means that you assume that there is nothing to argue in the first order. You claim that supporters of the deal will be harmed if it is not carried out, and of course you ignore the harm to opponents of the deal. In other words, you are essentially claiming that logical consideration should not be followed because the emotional ones will be harmed. This is precisely the indication that it is a question of emotional versus rational, for those who even need indications.
I'm not decisive, I'm trying to present the consideration of the supporters of the deal as a rational and not an emotional consideration, do you accept that? I think that the opponents of the deal are mainly talking about the future security damage and not the damage to solidarity, especially if according to the polls the majority of the people are in favor of the deal. Also, with respect to the future concern, I understand the skepticism, I think it can be reduced if we answer the question, did we change after October 7? I don't have an answer to that yet, but if we can formulate it, it could definitely help make the decision.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
