Upon the return of the bodies of two IDF reservists, Goldwasser and Regev, z.l., our thoughts are turned towards captives.


The State of Israel recovered its captives last week. At least, its representatives present this as the meaning of the transfer of the soldiers' remains to Israel in exchange for other bodies and living deadly terrorists. On the surface, this presentation is fair and true: there were two soldiers patrolling the Lebanese border. They were kidnapped, whether living or dead at the time, and stolen into Lebanon. There, they were delivered into the custody of Hassan Nasrallah until last week.


It now seems clear both were dead for some time. Whether an enemy can be said to hold the dead "captive" is

The family's emotions and desire for closure were hardly trivial things.

questionable. Based on the reactions of the soldiers' families, top politicians and many individual Israelis, it is apparently possible. Official Israel reacted as if it had received captives and not corpses.


The families' need to be in the presence of the remains of their loved ones was honored by the deal, which simultaneously seems to have dishonored living soldiers and civilians alike. While the family's emotions and desire for closure were hardly trivial things, so too should count the needs of more than six million living Israelis. Each of these is now closer to a potential future status as a living captive, a trump card to be ransomed for some other terrorists. Between the emotional needs of the Goldwassers, the Regevs and their friends, and the functional needs of millions, the decision-makers clearly gave massive weight to the former.


This is not new in Israel, which is one reason why this ghoulish trade could pass without significant internal opposition. For decades, the parents, relatives and friends of missing, captured and killed soldiers have - often with the enthusiastic help of Israel's mainstream media - exerted enormous pressure on Prime Ministers of the state. This pressure was effective in a few famous cases and even helped push Prime Minister Ehud Barak to precipitously and disastrously withdraw the IDF from Southern Lebanon in 2000; an event that is frequently cited as a precipitating cause of the Al-Aqsa Intifada (an innocuous enough name for the Palestinian Authority's effort at piecemeal genocide of Israel's civilian population for the next 18 months, and beyond). Then, the famous Four Mothers, women whose sons were killed in the original 1980s incursion into Lebanon, and media cohorts such as Shelly Yechimovitch, essentially shamed Barak into a policy decision with direct strategic implications for Israel.


With such precedents in the background, the campaign for the return of Regev and Goldwasser was facilitated. Ehud Goldwasser's mother in particular was a major advocate for a trade; few watching her on Israeli television could resist the fluently expressed evidence of her pain during interviews.


What these trades and the policy of tohar haneshek, or "purity of arms," reveal is that Israeli strategic and military doctrine is extremely moral - if the standards used to judge what is "moral" are rooted in concepts of the preeminence of the individual and a near-pacifism imbued with a religious flavor. Certainly, emphasizing both these concepts above those rooted in traditional Judaism reflects the mindset of Israel's political elite, with its Western and post-Jewish attitudes. And while right-wing writers have spent hours and pages analyzing the reasons for these attitudes, it is enough for the purposes of this article to say they exist and, in fact, dominate the thinking of Israel's leading politicians, generals, lawyers and judges. This is an empirical fact.


Thus, the trade "married" several powerful forces in Israeli political society: the preeminence of the value of suffering families, particularly female members (fathers and brothers rarely are highlighted in portrayals of the families); the related elevation of the role of emotion; and the value of the individual in Israeli society.


Literally, by the implications of the trade (evidenced by immediate threats of future kidnapping from the Hamas), political decision-makers ask masses of people to assume palpably greater risk. This includes risks for children and the elderly, segments of the population objectively dependent on others for care and protection. Given also the return of Hizballah dead, it is clear that Israeli society recognizes and honors the assumed humanity of its

Israeli strategic and military doctrine is extremely moral.

enemies - even as the representatives of these enemies repeatedly and animatedly boast of their plans for politicide and expulsion-genocide of Israeli and Diaspora Jews.


Legitimate arguments can be raised in support of the decision by the Israeli cabinet to free Samir Kuntar to obtain the remains of the two reservists. These include the collective emotional needs of the larger society, which is assumed to share in the grief and anxiety of the families to a considerable degree. The public is perceived as a mass emotional organism which is in need of closure for the boys, and in order to prepare itself for the looming conflict with the imperialist Shi'a revolutionary regime in Iran (almost certainly, it was this regime that ordered the original attacks, outlined the operational parameters, and orchestrated the sadistic negotiations that ensued). Perhaps also implied is that, in honoring the larger population's emotional needs, the government receives its assent for difficult decisions which follow.


My point, though, is not to retroactively argue the pros and cons. Rather, it is to point out in stark terms some of the principal drivers of Israeli tactical and strategic decision-making, and what they say about the mentalities not just of the political elites, but of large portions of the population itself. It is to emphasize the measures and standards of morality that Israeli society uses in facing deadly enemies. It is to suggest that the continuation of this mentality and values has long prejudiced - and undermined - Israeli strategic goals and tactical possibilities.


It is to say that such thinking is warped, that it falsely honors the enemy while placing millions of Israelis - and foreign Jews - at greater risk, at least in the short run. Critics can claim that "next month Kuntar will be targeted" or "all will be forgotten if Barak and Olmert act against Iran." But it is just as fair to point out that such thinking has likely precluded needed actions to this point.


It is just as likely that Israel has not to this point acted against the Iranian menace directly for fear of deviating from such unrealistic, un-Jewish principles - and for fear of backlash from the non-Jewish world. I too feel for the families of the kidnapped soldiers, but the first obligation of the caretakers of this sundered people is to the living. To my mind, this trade is a clarion call for new directions, new emphases and new standards of morality for a more secure Israel tomorrow.