But I remember that you also said the hostages are in immediate mortal danger, whereas the civilians are not in immediate danger, and a doubt does not override a certainty; besides, we can defend ourselves against an attack. So what difference does it make whether Hamas demands all the prisoners or additional things?

And if Hamas demanded that we shut down the country and all move abroad—would that also be fine? What kind of absurd argument is that?!
There are state interests that are not set aside for the sake of saving the lives of a few citizens. But a future, uncertain mortal danger to a few other citizens—those can be. I’m sure that with two seconds of thought you could have figured that out on your own.

That’s exactly it—if Hamas demanded things I couldn’t live with, then you’d be right. But if it demands things that are less convenient for me, yet I can still deal with them through better defense, what’s the problem? Obviously it’s going to demand something, because it has cards to play, unlike us.

If there were a deal with Hamas that included everyone for everyone, and in addition we would have to withdraw from all areas of the Strip, including Philadelphi, would you agree to such a deal?

Absolutely not. That would be going back to October 6.

Previously, at this link
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%A1-%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%A2%D7%95/
you wrote in the last comment that you agree to a deal under the following conditions:
1. A ceasefire for several months
2. Withdrawal from all areas of the Strip
3. Everyone for everyone

It seems your position has changed since then, hasn’t it?

Or maybe the distinction is that now that we’ve taken Philadelphi, that’s an achievement we mustn’t give up, unlike the situation 8 months ago, when we had taken several areas but not Philadelphi

No. There the discussion was about a temporary withdrawal. Today that isn’t the option on the table. A temporary withdrawal that allows us to return is definitely something to consider. But those are proposals that come up only in our internal discourse. Pure fantasy.

I don’t have any position at all regarding Philadelphi. I don’t have enough information about its importance, and it hasn’t been defined what would be there in place of the IDF. These are just empty discussions with no content. Like the stupid poll that was published yesterday on Kan 11 about leaving Philadelphi.

If back then we could leave temporarily, why can’t we leave temporarily today? What changed?

First, I didn’t say we could. I said that if a deal were offered that required only a temporary withdrawal, that would be worth considering. Today that’s also true, except that it isn’t what’s being offered (apart from people’s fevered imaginations).
Second, in the past there actually was a pause and we returned (in the previous deal). But even then, the return was on a low flame. Today the world is much more against us, and in my opinion it won’t be possible to return. Besides, Hamas is much more intelligent than we are, and any deal that gets signed will include guarantees that we won’t return.

This echoes the question that started the discussion. At the beginning of the war you wrote, “If we were offered a deal of all the Hamas prisoners in our hands in exchange for all the hostages, I would support it without hesitation,” and later you wrote, “I oppose a deal. Period.” Why did you change your mind?

As for the false claim that your opinion hasn’t changed, I’d appreciate an answer to the follow-up question: in your eyes, are the readers on this site stupid?

Let us also recall that you wrote in column 607 that “By the way, for example, I opposed the Shalit deal but support the current deal.” How does that square with “I oppose a deal. Period. Even if we end up finding them all dead, it doesn’t matter. In my view, we shouldn’t negotiate at all”?

Gabriel, since I answered the questions at the beginning of your message, I’ll address only the last one. It’s hard for me to make a categorical statement about all my readers. My impression is that the vast majority of them are definitely not stupid. But there is at least one about whom I can determine without hesitation that he is indeed stupid. But there’s no need to mention his identity.
Responder, I answered your question too. It’s worth reading and thinking a bit before asking. Don’t take your example from the idiot above you.

Rabbi, you used to be much more patient with people writing comments, even with stupid, parasitic, and stubborn ones, and even with people writing accusations and insults.

I think that because of the confusion created among the readers and the many questions about the Rabbi’s view, it would be appropriate for the Rabbi to devote an article to explaining his position against a deal as opposed to the position of those who support one.
Thank you