One of the most sensitive issues on our national agenda at the moment is the question of whether or not we should go through with all three stages of the hostage release agreement we signed with Hamas on January 15.
Those who argue in favor of breaking the agreement claim that the price we have agreed to pay in exchange for all our hostages, which includes the release of over a thousand Palestinian prisoners with Jewish blood on their hands and the complete cessation of the fighting, is much too high.
I belong to those who believe that though the agreement is far from ideal, it is the best we could get and that bringing all the hostages home is vital. My basic premise is that the state has a basic duty to do its best to bring its citizens who have come in harm’s way, whether in Israel or abroad, back home safely as rapidly as possible.
In the current situation resulting from the events of October 7, the responsibility of the state towards the victims of the Hamas onslaught on southwestern Israel – those who were attacked, slaughtered, and/or kidnapped to the Gaza Strip – is absolute, for it was the duty of the state to prevent what happened, and both the political level and the armed forces failed dismally in doing so.
In addition, I believe that unless all the hostages are returned home, either to rehabilitate their lives or to be properly buried (as the case may be), the rehabilitation of society as a whole, after the events of the last two years, will be impossible.
Having been born in this country several years before the establishment of the state and having grown up on the ethos of the state’s responsibility for the well-being and safety of its citizens in all respects, even though the Knesset has never passed a law to this effect, I find it very difficult to accept the claim that this obligation is not absolute, as the Halacha seems to claim.
Like many others in this in this country, religious and secular, I am inclined to quote the halachic command concerning the redemption of captives (pidyon shvuyim), which was discussed by the Rambam some 800 years ago. Even the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) politicians today are inclined to quote this command with regard to the release of the hostages from the Gaza Strip, though they, like the rest of us, are also inclined to ignore the halachic reservations to this command.
These reservations include the statement that one should not pay for the redemption of captives more than their real worth. There are reservations to this reservation as well, but it certainly may be seen as a justification for those today who believe that the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners and a cessation of the war against Hamas is too high a price to pay for the release of our hostages.
What is the correct price of a hostage deal?
The question, of course, is who decides the “worth” of each captive, and how one determines the correct price one agrees to pay. Is it the Rambam, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US President Donald J. Trump, or someone else?
We know that for Netanyahu, whether the price is acceptable, depends on whether it will directly or indirectly help preserve his political career. For Trump, it is believed that it is acceptable if it will help lead to his receiving a Nobel Peace Prize.
SEVERAL DAYS ago, I got into a stormy argument with a colleague on the issue of whether the vote by the Otzma Yehudit and Religious Zionist ministers against the hostage release agreement was morally acceptable, given that it constitutes a death sentence to all those hostages who are still alive, and will not be released should Israel decide to renege on its signature on the agreement.
My colleague reacted to my insinuation that this act was morally faulty by asking me whether in my opinion there is a limit to the price we should be willing to pay for the hostages. When I responded that as long as the decision-makers put up a fight to keep the price as low as possible, the deal was legitimate and unavoidable in my eyes, he shot back: “You are not answering my question.”
Fortunately, the argument was cut short, but had it continued, and had I managed to regain my composure, I would have raised what is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of the deal. One has to be devoid of any human feelings not to conclude from the return so far of the first 18 hostages released within the framework of the current deal, that deliberately putting an end to the process would be a miserable and inhuman act.
All 44 surviving hostages are human beings, the majority young men and a few older men, with whose names and biographies we are familiar, as well as with the circumstances of their abductions.
How on earth would leaving them behind to join the 32 hostages, who have already perished, to try to forestall future events, the exact nature of which we do not know, in which thousands of unnamed persons are liable to be killed, and hundreds raped (as some of the prophets of doom are predicting), add to our society’s welfare?
Are we really so unsure of ourselves that we do not believe we are capable of dealing successfully with events of a similar nature to those of October 7?
Can anyone imagine a situation in which the latest three released hostages, who we received two days ago – Yarden Bibas, Ofer Kalderon, and Keith Siegel – had been left behind?
And what about the three Israelis released last Thursday – Agam Berger, Arbel Yehoud, Gadi Mozes – and another five Thai agricultural laborers?
As things look at the moment, if the final decision on this issue is left in Netanyahu’s hands, I believe that he would seek some excuse to renege on the agreement we signed, primarily to prevent his government from falling apart. At the same time, he keeps telling the hostages’ families that he plans to bring all the hostages back home, which clashes with other sayings he utters to the effect that the war will be resumed after the current stage of the agreement is completed, and possibly even beforehand.
In the final reckoning, the issue might well be decided this week when Netanyahu will meet Trump in Washington. All the indications point to Trump seeking the return of all hostages to Israel and the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas turning into a permanent cessation of hostilities.
The writer published her first article in The Jerusalem Post in 1966. Over the years she has held both academic and journalistic positions and published articles on Zionism, European politics, current affairs, and Israeli politics. She has published several books, in both Hebrew and English, the last of which was Israel’s Knesset Members – A Comparative Study of an Undefined Job.