Q&A: On the Argument of "Strengthening the Enemy"
On the Argument of "Strengthening the Enemy"
Question
Since October 7, there seems to be an argument, heard mainly from the right, against actions by the other camp.
And it keeps repeating itself:
"You are strengthening Sinwar"
"This is exactly what Hamas wants"
In response to the demonstrations, to pressure for the release of the hostages,
and to various other developments.
On the one hand, I connect with the argument.
There is a war against an enemy,
and a process that supports / strengthens / aligns with the enemy—
in essence, that is bad.
On the other hand,
I think this is a ridiculous argument.
1. Why should the fact that some move or another seems right (for example: demonstrations) have to take into account what the enemy thinks about it?
It is right! For strategic / ideological / moral reasons (of course, assuming that is correct).
2. "Strengthening the enemy" is a strategic claim.
The cabinet and the military are supposed to weigh strategic considerations.
The public is not supposed to know such details,
it is not supposed to weigh such considerations.
It is supposed to hold the views it holds,
and allow its feelings and ideas to be expressed.
3. The right-wing camp also supported steps that Sinwar supported.
For example, releasing hostages in the first phase.
Should the fact that Sinwar supported them
have categorically prevented Israeli support?
What do you think about the original argument and/or what I raised against it?
Answer
It depends on the context and on which step is being discussed. You can’t set rules here. The crazed protests following the murder of the six hostages are direct cooperation with Sinwar. Not because of what he thinks, but because of what he will infer and do. So it’s also stupid.
Discussion on Answer
I explained this here in other questions. Without their pressure, they try to reach a deal through pressure. It is very doubtful that Sinwar would agree. But their hysterical pressure ensures that he will not agree, and instead will raise further demands that we cannot meet, and will murder more hostages in order to break us apart even more. By their own hands they are causing everything that they (and all of us) want not to happen. That is stupid.
Just today it was reported that Hamas is considering murdering more hostages in order to pressure Israel. There’s a good chance the demonstrations caused this.
A
Amazing—when people accuse the government of murder, they say that the one guilty of the murder is the Hamas terror organization. But accusing the demonstrations of causing it is no problem, and Hamas is apparently a charity organization.
What’s amazing is how much bias distorts people’s judgment. Hostage psychosis.
https://news.walla.co.il/item/3689362
Why is it stupid? The protesters' assumption is that there is no possibility the hostages will return alive without a deal, and the event of the six murdered hostages contributed to that theory, so it makes sense that they are pressuring the government to make a deal. Why should I care what Sinwar will infer? At most, it means that if there is no deal and they come to rescue hostages, he’ll murder them—which is what happened even without the demonstrations.