Q&A: Why Distinguish Between a Soldier and a Civilian Regarding the Price in a Hostage Deal
Originally published:
This is an English translation (via GPT-5.4). Read the original Hebrew version.
Why Distinguish Between a Soldier and a Civilian Regarding the Price in a Hostage Deal
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I understood that around the time of Nachshon Wachsman, Rabin was willing to pay a higher price for Wachsman’s release if he had been a civilian. Do you think such a distinction is justified? And why?
Best regards,
Answer
This is a question there is no way to answer. First, how do you quantify the value of a person? Second, there are different circumstances that affect the matter, such as how many captives we have, how dangerous they are, what the security situation is, what our chances are of monitoring those who are released, what the circumstances of the capture were, what strategic effects the deal has, and so on and so on.
Discussion on Answer
See the Shamgar Commission report on the subject.
I heard an explanation that the reason for this distinction is that a soldier took on a risk when he enlisted in the army, whereas a civilian did not. Also, that the state uses soldiers to protect civilians and not the other way around. But on the other hand, a soldier is sent on behalf of the state, and therefore the state’s obligation toward him is greater.