Q&A: Hostage Deal
Hostage Deal
Question
In column 607 you argued that future considerations are not the heart of the matter in the issue of releasing the hostages, because in any case it would be impossible to bring down Hamas. Your claim was that you opposed a hostage deal, even though the hostage aspect is the most elevated one, because releasing hostages right now would harm the release of other hostages. We are now several months after that column, and a few things have happened: (1) a deal was indeed carried out, and so far 80% of the hostages have already been released. (2) We are continuing to strike Hamas, though not to collapse it. (3) There are plans to conquer Gaza.
In light of these things, it seems that if we continue to ignore right-wing aspects (future considerations), continue to argue that it is impossible to bring down Hamas, and continue to focus on the individual hostages (and argue that bringing them back is the primary goal of the war), the obvious conclusion is that it is worthwhile and proper to carry out a deal for all the hostages in exchange for stopping the fighting (in line with the spirit of article 607).
Do you agree with that? I’m asking because I saw in several places your opposition to any deal (since all deals include stopping the fighting, either completely or for an extended period).
Answer
Indeed, a lot of water has flowed through the Kishon since those things were written. I had not imagined that the government would have such courage and determination to continue the fighting in the face of all the pressure. Today, in my assessment, there is a chance to defeat Hamas, although that is far from clear. It will depend to a large extent on continued determination and on intelligent management of the matter (something at which, in my estimation, the government and the army are not very outstanding).
I’m not at all sure we have the option of getting all the hostages back even in exchange for the moon. I tend to think that even if we surrender, that won’t happen, but in my view even if it would happen, we must not surrender. Partial deals are a local matter, and I don’t have a sweeping position about them. But if it is possible to gain some hostages at a price that is not irreversible, there is definitely room for that.
Discussion on Answer
If you choose which considerations to ignore, then of course you can arrive at whatever decision you want.
Of course, I’m just asking for your view in light of the developments that have taken place. After all, in column 607 you said that future considerations should be ignored, and I’m wondering whether you still hold that position. And if so, why not make a deal for everyone in exchange for surrender?
I didn’t write there, and I have never thought, that future considerations should be ignored. On the contrary, the main considerations here concern the future. What I argued there was that future dangers from the terrorists we would release are not a central consideration, and certainly that body counts should not be measured. The consideration of future security is the reason we went to this war, and the main reason it is justified.
Okay, so if future considerations do matter, what do you see as having changed in that respect between the time the column was written and now?
It seems, though maybe I’m mistaken, that when you wrote the column you thought that the future considerations of Hamas recovering and the extreme Arab world understanding that we surrender if our civilians are kidnapped were things that would happen one way or another (because we would surrender in any case), and therefore it was worth making a deal and stopping the war. But now, when we see that the war resumed, those considerations have become relevant again—there is an ability to eliminate Hamas. From that, maybe it really is worth going all the way, in order to prevent the future difficulty that comes from surrender.
If I am indeed right, then the justification for opposing a hostage deal is because of future considerations of eliminating Hamas and establishing our standing as those who eliminate anyone who kidnaps our civilians—a justification that did not reasonably exist at the time the column was written because of the thought that in any case we would not be able to defeat Hamas.
Am I understanding your position correctly?
Exactly. That’s what I wrote.
I remember that once you wanted people to send you a clip from Avi Sagi about the hostage deal, so here—I found one in which he says it’s obvious that a deal should be made:
Why exactly not accept a surrender deal in exchange for all the hostages (if that were possible, which of course it isn’t)? Assuming we ignore future considerations, that is the obvious thing to do. In other words, it seems that the only way to oppose a full deal that includes ending the war is to take future considerations into account (which of course also include future considerations involving other organizations that will see that if they kidnap our civilians, we surrender).