The Kidnappers’ Deal

Hello Rabbi Michi,

I only recently saw the posts you wrote in which you expressed your position on the hostage deal, and I was saddened to realize that you oppose the hostage deals, even those that existed.
I have read the arguments, and since a tranquilizer or a psychologist will not remove the sadness (even if it is just an emotion), I would like to present to you a number of arguments in favor of the deal and an attempt to deal with some of your arguments.
1. The first point is that there is no reason to compare the 7/10 abductees to anyone who was kidnapped or taken prisoner in the past.
The kidnapped are in Hamas tunnels solely due to the state’s shameful failure (whether at the military or government levels) to fulfill its basic duty towards its citizens to maintain their personal security in general and in the surrounding communities in particular.
This failure is in fact a blatant violation of the most fundamental condition of the contract between it and its citizens, and therefore it is under an obligation, which can even be defined as sacred, to do everything in its power to fulfill this violated contract.
This could and should have been done only by making the first war goal that the government had to set was the return of the kidnapped.
2. You yourself state that there is no reasonable possibility of defining the goal of the war as the return of the hostages and at the same time establishing a parallel goal of destroying Hamas.
Since the return of the hostages is a moral and contractual obligation in the sense of correcting the criminal negligence (in my opinion, even bordering on crime) that brought upon us 7/10 in general and the kidnapping of the hostages in particular, then this goal must be dominant even if it harms or diminishes the goal of destroying Hamas.
3. The war is intended to destroy Hamas, but only as long as it also results in the return of the hostages, and to the extent that the goal of destruction harms or is likely to harm the hostages, the state must adapt the destruction operations so as not to undermine the return of the hostages.
4. In all of the above, I did not include the element of emotion, compassion, mutual responsibility, preventing suffering, and the duty towards the families whose suffering is indescribable, and to which we as human beings and as Jews are obligated.
5. Your argument that the considerations and discourse regarding the hostage deals reflect emotional psychosis and are devoid of logic, reason, and practical reasoning that should not affect the achievement of the state’s goal of destroying Hamas is factually incorrect in the case of this war, even if I agree with your basic premise that a worthy leadership must know how to sacrifice the individual for the sake of the state’s overarching goals.
In our case, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and his associates (and I remember the ratings you gave to this government at the time), this premise has no basis or relevance.
A. They are responsible for defining the clearly contradictory war goals, and this did not happen due to a lack of thought, quite the opposite.
B. The certain and immediate danger of the killing or other death of the hostages outweighs the future danger that may possibly occur due to the release of a large number of terrorists and the possible complete destruction of Hamas, especially when it is already militarily weakened.
During the Entebbe operation, several Torah scholars gathered and decided that the kidnappers’ demand should be accepted and the number of terrorists released from prison as demanded should be released in order to free the hostages.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef ruled: “It seems from the law that we really should be more and more aware of the immediate danger of the hundred kidnapped Jews as the flame of the sword is waved over their heads by the cruel terrorists who hijacked the plane and threatened to execute them… while the future danger that may occur with the release of the forty imprisoned terrorists is not currently on the agenda immediately, but rather in the long term and after some time.”
This reasoning also applies to our case, both regarding the release of the imprisoned terrorists and regarding the withdrawal from Gaza.
The pretense of predicting with certainty the disaster that will occur due to the two concessions above has no basis or advantage over the opinion that we can handle the price and requires maximum caution when risking human life and suffering.
C. Furthermore, the issue of stopping the war was clarified by security officials as a solution, since we could at any time find an excuse to enter Gaza again, even if we had pledged not to do so.
The same is true for the released terrorists, for whom security forces will most likely be able to deal with the problem that may or may not occur, and we also don’t know when.
Netanyahu himself has just proven that even though he signed the three-phase agreement, when he decided that he would not fulfill the commitment to begin Phase B of the agreement, with all that this implies, he allowed himself to violate the agreement he signed and claim that he wants to extend Phase A.
He could act in this way even if he withdraws from the Strip and declares a cessation of the war, the hostages will be returned, and he will find a reason to violate the agreement and enter Gaza.
D. Do you trust the judgment of the government and its leader that the price of withdrawing from the Philadelphia axis and declaring the end of the war and releasing the imprisoned terrorists does not justify the release of the hostages?
After all, this is the government that just withdrew from the Netzarim axis for the hostages who were released in the first phase, when in May the Prime Minister firmly declared that withdrawing from the Netzarim axis was a national security disaster and therefore torpedoed a deal and led to the deaths of at least 6 hostages and several other soldiers.
After all, this is the government and its leader who signed the three-phase deal that is identical to the agreement proposed in May and even agreed to withdraw from the Philadelphia axis, but upon completion of phase one, he regretted it and does not want to leave this axis.
the. Can you safely accept and trust Netanyahu’s judgment that there should be a return to fighting with all that this implies, when he has not presented any plan for “the day after” to date, and when such a decision will certainly result in the killing of at least some of the hostages and may even end for some of them as the end of the Ron Arad case and the extension of their detention with every passing hour?
F. Can you state firmly, as you wrote, that there is no room for a deal even if the kidnapped are killed, when I am sure that doubts also nestle within you? Are there not political and personal considerations and a strong desire to maintain the integrity of the government involved in the Prime Minister’s conduct throughout the days of fighting?
If you have the means, and given Netanyahu’s many decisions during the war that speak for themselves and common sense cannot deny this, then there is no doubt that on balance, sacrificing human life is absolutely forbidden.
6. I dare to question your determination that you are not willing to be a part of a discourse in which space is given, perhaps even too much, to feelings of mercy, compassion, concern for others, etc., elements that, in your opinion, have no place in the psychologist’s room, and I allow myself to add that the above elements are what together create the mutual guarantee that is already right within the intellectual, rational, and very logical realm.
I have other arguments in my arsenal, including actual opposition to your distinction between right and left, between secular and religious, regarding the components that underlie the decisions or ideology of the two groups, and even support for the opposite distinction, but the platform is short.
In conclusion, I stand in astonishment and really do not understand how you, Rabbi Michi, and all the rabbis who joined in opposing the deal, do not give weight, even to a limited number of grams, to the benefit of the doubt in the justice of your opposition, when we are in the heart of the law of souls.
Isn’t it appropriate to be a little modest and not presumptuous in decisively cutting off the fate of our brothers and sisters, the fate of intact families, and ending ongoing suffering every hour we don’t work to bring them back?
Do you really have all the information about all its components to know what will happen in the future and on the basis of what you know to cast your fate with such certainty as to vote for Ben Gvir?

As far as I am concerned, the abandonment of the kidnapped will be a global disgrace to each of us as individuals and as a country, and will severely damage our resilience as a people and as a country.

I hope we will pass the tests ahead of us with the help of common sense and reason, and as human beings and as Jews, with the right amount of emotion.