Israel-Hamas war: The moral maze of hostage deals

The decision to support the hostage deal with Hamas was “one of the hardest decisions I have ever made in the 40 years that I have served the country,” National Unity Party Minister Benny Gantz told the nation on Wednesday evening.

As a former chief of staff and defense minister, Gantz has undoubtedly faced numerous difficult life-and-death decisions. But this, he made clear, was unique. 

Yet, as difficult as the decision was, Gantz added, “I am convinced with all my heart that this is the right decision.”Interestingly, he then used two principles of Jewish law to frame the decision. 

“Our commitment to bring the sons and daughters home is a combination of [the halachic principle] ‘a doubt does not remove a certainty’ and [the principle of] ‘anyone who sustains one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes to him as if he sustained an entire world.’”

Jewish teachings, Gantz made clear, informed his decision to support the deal.

 The concept of doubts not removing a certainty (“ein safek motzi mi-yedei vadai”) reflects the idea that where there is uncertainty or doubt about something, one cannot use that uncertainty or doubt to negate or overrule something that is certain.

Theory vs practice 

What that means in relation to the hostage deal is that the uncertainty and concern about whether the return of the hostages in exchange for terrorists convicted of attempted murder will lead to more terrorism; or the uncertainty about whether the four-day temporary ceasefire will enable Hamas to regroup, reassess, and refuel, thereby leading to the deaths of more IDF soldiers, does not negate a certainty.

And what is the certainty? That the lives of 50 babies, children, and women – including a 10-month-old baby and two and three-year-old children – will be saved by the hostage deal. That is the certainty if the deal is actually carried out. The rest is uncertain. Doubts and uncertainties, according to this principle, do not trump certainties. “In my eyes, this decision, and the concern for the hostages, is a demonstration of the strength of Israeli society,” Gantz added.

To some observers, and to enemies such as Hezbollah and Hamas, this Israeli concern for the hostages is not a societal strength but rather a weakness – one that can be, and often is, exploited. And over the years, it has been extensively exploited.

For instance, in the 1985 Jibril deal, Israel released 1,150 Palestinian security prisoners, including 380 serving life sentences – such as Hamas founder and spiritual leader Ahmed Yassin, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) head Ziyad al-Nakhalah, and Fatah leader Jibril Rajoub – in return for three IDF soldiers held by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) General Command led by Ahmed Jibril. Those released played a key role in the First Intifada of 1987 and in numerous subsequent acts of terror.

In 2008, Israel released six terrorists, including the notorious murderer Samir Kuntar and the bodies of 199 terrorists in Israeli hands – to Hezbollah for the bodies of captured soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev. Kuntar went on to become a senior Hezbollah official who commanded attacks against Israeli targets before being killed on the outskirts of Damascus in 2015.

And, in 2011, Israel gave up 1,027 prisoners, including 280 sentenced to life in prison – among them, Hamas head Yahya Sinwar – for Gilad Shalit.

Nevertheless, Gantz  – and he is by far not alone – sees Israel’s concern for hostages as a societal strength.How so? Because it is this deep concern for the hostages, this manifestation of mutual responsibility, that builds solidarity, and it is that solidarity that is an essential ingredient in this country’s national resilience, so necessary in facing and overcoming one challenge after the other.

Or, as Gantz said, earlier in the week before the cabinet voted and approved the hostage deal, “The return of the hostages is a moral imperative and part of the resilience that enables us to win wars.” 

 Ayelet Goldin, the sister of Hadar Goldin whose body has cruelly been kept by Hamas for nine years, put it another way. She was quoted on Army Radio as saying that the hostages must be brought home because if they are not brought home, that home has no value.

Tellingly, the agreement passed in the cabinet – the most right-wing cabinet Israel has ever had – by a vote of 35-3, an indication of widespread support for the sentiment that Gantz expressed.

GANTZ’S REMARKS about the difficulty of the decision to support the hostage deal were made on Wednesday evening at a press conference alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant. The nation watched that press conference believing earlier news reports that the hostage deal would go into effect at 10 a.m. the next morning. 

The nation watched Netanyahu, Gallant, and Gantz speak, believing that Israel was on the cusp of a four-day ceasefire, during which 50 Israeli hostages – children 18 and under, their mothers, and 12 elderly women – would be released in four different tranches. In exchange, Israel agreed to the four-day ceasefire, including six hours a day during which it would stop aerial surveillance of the Gaza Strip, allow more humanitarian aid and fuel into the area, and release 150 women and underaged security prisoners, some of them charged with attempted murder.

Less than an hour after that late-evening press conference, however, National Security Council head Tzachi Hanegbi released a statement saying implementation of the deal would be postponed by a day. Oddly, neither Netanyahu, Gantz, nor Gallant mentioned that there would be a postponement, something they must have been aware of when they gave their press conference. 

No one, however, should have been surprised by the delay, since this is an agreement with a savage terrorist organization that values nothing. Yet if there was no real surprise, there was disappointment. This development injected another twist and turn into the already tumultuous emotional roller-coaster that the families – and to a lesser extent, the entire nation – find themselves riding.

When the deal was announced, it was as if a flicker of light broke through the prevailing darkness that has enveloped the country since October 7. It was a flicker of light, but it was bittersweet.

Bitter because while 50 hostages were set to be released, another 190 would be left languishing in Hamas’s hands. Bitter because it would mean a four-day respite in the immensely justifiable goal of destroying Hamas’s military and political capacities so it could never again threaten the country. Bitter because this pause could mean more deaths to soldiers. Bitter because of the price Israel was forced to pay in releasing terrorists who – if past experience is any indication – will go out and try to kill another day.

Yet this beam of light was sweet because 50 lives would be saved and because 50 people would be restored to their loved ones. Even that bittersweet beam of light was dimmed, however, with the announcement of the postponement. Dimmed, but not extinguished. Yet the on-again, off-again nature of the deal slammed home the realization that there is absolutely nothing you can count on when dealing with a terrorist organization.

Or, as the US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday in a Zoom call with Jewish leaders, “We know we’re dealing with Hamas.. It’s a terrorist group. So of course, we’re not going to take anything that they say at face value.”

Then, the question must be asked, why deal with them, why deal with a terrorist organization?

Simple: Because there is no choice. Because, as Gantz said, this is a reality that has been forced upon the country.Because Israel cannot let 240 people just rot in Hamas’s tunnels. Because this would destroy the unwritten social contract that makes this country so special and that holds that the country will do everything to rescue its citizens from danger. Because those kidnapped are civilians who were taken as a result of a colossal failure by the state to fulfill its most basic function: to protect them. 

That the country failed to uphold that duty places an even greater onus on it to rectify the situation by securing the release of as many hostages as it can – even if the price is high and the deal is a major risk. 

And, yes, the price is very high and the risks are very grave. But still.