Q&A: The Hostage Deal
The Hostage Deal
Question
Hello,
I saw that you wrote against the hostage deal. There is an argument that says that if we do not bring back the hostages, it will harm social solidarity, it will unravel our sense of nationhood; our foundation is that we are one big family, and we care for our brothers and sisters. As for the concern that Hamas will return to the same situation, first, if we agree that what happened will not happen again—that is, that we changed after October 7—then the situation will not return, and we will act forcefully the moment there is an attempt to reestablish itself. Second, it may be that we will succeed in removing them from power with the help of Trump’s policy. In short, there are two views here fighting over nationhood from opposite directions. What do you think about that?
Answer
The solidarity argument is problematic. Just because there are emotional people who are mistaken, does that mean the rational ones have to surrender? Why shouldn’t the emotional ones also be concerned for social cohesion with the rational ones? It is the lack of concern for the security of the state and its citizens that undermines cohesion, and the hostage deal expresses such a lack of concern.
If we decide and succeed, everything will be wonderful. The question is whether that is possible and whether it will happen. We’ll wait and see. So far it hasn’t worked.
Discussion on Answer
You are not addressing what I wrote. Signing the deal will also harm cohesion (and already has harmed it).
Clearly there is such a consideration, and the question is whether it is decisive. Taking it as an absolute consideration is emotionalism.
Beyond that, when you raise a second-order argument, that means you are assuming there is nothing to argue on the first-order level. You argue that supporters of the deal will be hurt if it is not carried out, and of course you ignore the harm to the opponents of the deal. That is, you are basically arguing that we must not follow the logical consideration because the emotional people will be hurt. That is exactly the indication that this is emotional people versus rational people, for anyone who needs indications at all.
I’m not deciding; I’m trying to present the consideration of the deal’s supporters as a rational consideration and not an emotional one. Do you accept that? I think the opponents of the deal mainly talk about the future security damage and not about the damage to solidarity, especially if according to the polls most of the people support the deal. Also, regarding the future concern, I understand the skepticism. I think it can be reduced if we answer the question: did we change after October 7? I still don’t have an answer to that, but if we can necessarily formulate one, it could help in making the decision.
We are not surrendering; this is a real consideration, and of course one can disagree with it. Both sides say that it will harm nationhood in the long term. The division into emotional and rational is not necessary; this is about a value. I understand that there is a dispute. It seems to me that the main question is: did we change after October 7?