Actually, in my opinion we should not negotiate at all. That is the main damage. We should wage a total war until they are destroyed.

Why is the Rabbi against a deal? What are the families of the hostages supposed to do? Just give up? What would you do if it were your child being held hostage?

It could be that I would be shouting in Hostages Square too (I hope not). So what? They are biased, and that does not mean the decision-makers should conduct themselves according to their biased dictates and sacrifice all of our fate for the sake of the hostages. I am not telling the hostage families what to do. I am telling the government what to do.

If this is true, does it change your position, Michi?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.davar1.co.il/536950/&ved=2ahUKEwjd_8LHo6GIAxVLg_0HHSzSAj4QFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2IYVeOnCUE-Ntd91QSflbS

Not even by a millimeter.

There’s one thing I don’t understand: you prefer to abandon living citizens for the sake of a small chance that maybe we’ll eliminate Hamas, and even if we do, another organization will probably rise in its place—and all this while we have a hundred thousand evacuees, a collapsing economy, an international crisis, and more. Rabbi, have you lost your mind?? You sound like a child who prefers the world to burn as long as a few Arabs die. And what are you going to do about Hezbollah?? Just so you know, there isn’t really money for a war with them, and believe me, that front is harder. And we haven’t even talked about the threat from Iran, which is already getting very close to nuclear weapons. I’d be glad if the Rabbi would explain why you look at this issue so narrowly and don’t take into account many other important and significant considerations.

At least I have something to lose my mind over. You seem not to have one. About that it was said: “My father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.” I’m done.

Rabbi, could you please answer a “reverse” question: can you give an example of a constellation of circumstances in which you would support a deal? I’d also be glad if you could state the parameters and their “ranges of values” for which you would in fact recommend going for a deal. It’s clear to me that you can’t give a closed algorithm valid for every case, but I’d be glad if you could at least give a few rules of thumb. Does it depend on the number of hostages? Does it depend on the figures leading Hamas? Does it depend somehow on the conduct of the Gazans themselves?

Thank you very much.

If they return all the hostages to us in exchange for all their prisoners, and they do not prevent us from continuing to eliminate Hamas while maintaining our own security strip in Gaza. There is no point building on the conduct of the Gazans unless we see that they are truly undergoing a radical change, which probably will not happen. Signatures on papers are not worth the shard on which the flask was sealed.

I sent a link showing that the Gazans—according to the IDF—mostly do not support Hamas. Isn’t that a change?

Not at all, for two reasons: 1. They do not support it now because they are suffering at the moment. They have not become lovers of Zion. 2. Even if most of them do not support these actions of his, they elected him, and even if not—they allow him to rule and murder. With that there is nothing to discuss or negotiate.

They have no weapons. How do you expect them not to allow Hamas to rule if the result of rebellion is torture and death?

See columns 61, 67, 283, and others.

Regarding the end of the Rabbi’s answer:
“If they return all the hostages to us in exchange for all their prisoners, and they do not prevent us from continuing to eliminate Hamas while maintaining our own security strip in Gaza.”

Whom did you mean by “they do not prevent us…”? The nations of the world? If so, that sounds like an unrealistic example, because Gazan civilians will continue to be killed in such a situation, and I don’t see any chance that the nations of the world would agree to such a thing. Is there an example of a “realistic” deal that the Rabbi can give?

And one more thing: if we were in fact conducting a total war, I assume that at some stage we would stop receiving aid from other countries (especially weapons from the U.S.) in response to the continued deaths of Gazan civilians. Isn’t that a consideration that should prevent us from conducting a total war?

I’m not trying to be cute; it just seems that there is no realistic alternative that leaves us in a good situation. If we go for a deal, it will simply destroy our future (the establishment of a Palestinian state, increasing motivation for kidnappings and terror attacks, etc.), and if we go for a total war, we will probably be significantly harmed internationally, both on the security level and on the economic level (I assume they will impose a massive boycott on us). Can the Rabbi point to a path at the end of which we come out in at least a reasonable situation?

I don’t understand. That is exactly my claim. That is why I oppose a deal.

Okay, so in your opinion there is no deal (realistic) that is worth our agreeing to, right?
If so, why is the alternative of a total war preferable to a deal (realistic but bad)? That is, in both cases we end up in a bad place, so why prefer a total war? In the case of a deal, for example, at least we would get some hostages back alive.

Why did you decide that in both cases we end badly? If Hamas is eliminated, we end well.

A bad deal—not all the hostages will necessarily be returned, Hamas will be strengthened, the motivation for terror attacks and kidnappings will grow, terrorists with blood on their hands will be released and harm us in the future, it will give a morale boost to all the other Arab states and various terror organizations regarding our “weakness,” the establishment of a Palestinian state, and more.

Total war—if we manage to save hostages it will probably be only a minority; even if we eliminate Hamas, it will come at the cost of massive killing of civilians (and another organization will probably arise in its place), quite a few of our soldiers killed, economic sanctions from the world and perhaps even military intervention by other countries against us, increased hatred from the other Arabs around us, the establishment of a Palestinian state, and more.

In both cases, the overall weighted final result is bad (even if there are good secondary outcomes). I’d be glad if you could enlighten me… so that I may merit to say, “You have comforted me, our Rabbi, you have comforted me!”

To Heter Iska, Michi prefers to keep fighting in Gaza even for five years until the last Hamasnik is destroyed. He doesn’t care that in the meantime the hostages will die, the north will remain desolate, the economy will collapse, antisemitism will increase, Iran will keep arming itself, and Hezbollah too. In short, Michi has become the Palestinian right wing—he prefers the suffering of the enemy over his own flourishing.

Personally, I would support staying in Philadelphi if Netanyahu were building a general strategy for rehabilitating the country and would explain to me why Philadelphi is critical to that plan. The strategy, from my perspective, has to include restoring the economy, bringing back the north, restoring international relations, an alliance with the moderate Arab states and establishing their rule in Gaza, an international coalition against Iran, and more. From my perspective, the insistence on Philadelphi, which abandons the lives of the hostages without any horizon for the other problems, and treating the one and relatively small problem in my view called Hamas at the expense of the hostages’ lives, is an unbearable price that any reasonable person should oppose.

To the two writers above me, tell me, do you hate people that much? What is this hatred toward the Rabbi?
He is explaining his logic—why attack him?
I got an answer to my question.
One has to distinguish between the personal suffering of the hostage families and the broader good of the state.

To normi: I really do not hate the Rabbi—on the contrary, I think he is a smart and upright person (in the vast majority of cases). I was simply trying to get the Rabbi to explain to me the importance of Gaza as against a million and one other things. I am simply arguing that Netanyahu’s focus on Gaza and not on other things that are much more important, and that all of us are being dragged into the abyss because of a few Hamasniks while at the same time abandoning our living citizens, is unreasonable. That’s all. And to that Michi answers that a long-term war in which all the hostages die is preferable (not that he wants that, heaven forbid, but that is what he is willing to let happen) for the sake of a few Hamasniks. Maybe a day will come when I discover that I was wrong, but from a long-term perspective I think what is being done here now is a historic mistake.

If there is a hostage deal, it will be one that leaves Hamas in place. If Hamas remains, two things will certainly happen.
1. Hundreds out of the thousands of released terrorists will carry out a wave of attacks. That is 100 percent certain. Gilad Shalit releasees carried out dozens of deadly attacks. Painful as it is, thousands died in the war and will continue to die; there is no reason they should be different. The desire to free them cannot lead to a reckless deal that will certainly cause dozens of attacks and another mega-attack in the future after Hamas gets itself reorganized a bit.
2. If Hamas had any hesitation whatsoever about whether kidnappings and mass rape and murder are worthwhile, that hesitation will of course drop to zero.
Any person with a little rationality can reach these conclusions. Even those who are now enthusiastic supporters of a deal spoke out in the past against hostage deals and protests.
Maybe both sides are acting out of politics, but one side (Netanyahu) is justified in acting this way.

The Shalit releasees carried out the attacks because they were the right people at the right time. If they had not been released, I assume Hamas would have recruited other people to carry out those same attacks.
I do not know whether it is even possible to eliminate Hamas. We can destroy their offensive capabilities, but the question is whether we are simply postponing the next round by a few years, until Hamas recovers.
It is also quite unclear what will happen after Hamas falls. I fear Bibi has no plan, and then a vacuum will be created in the Strip that may cause other Islamist antisemitic elements to raise their heads.

Mr. Logic, in Judea and Samaria there are thousands of armed men; in the north too there are thousands of Hezbollah operatives; 2,000 kilometers away from us there is also a power that wants to destroy us; and there are also the Houthis, and more and more and more. If you go with a strategy of eternal war, until the last little Arab, the state will simply collapse because there will be no money, legitimacy, etc. I’m not saying we should surrender to every dictate, but we also need to set limits and understand when the situation is deteriorating badly, and right now, in every possible field, the situation is very bad, and in my opinion the war in Gaza is not advancing us anywhere. We need to build a broad strategy to restore the north, the economy, international relations, and most importantly to establish a coalition against Iran. In short, in my opinion all those who support this eternal war are dragging us into an abyss that it is doubtful we will be able to get out of even if the government changes.

Could the Rabbi please address my previous message in the thread?

No. You expressed a position, and so did I. Everything has been said.