They forced the enemy to flee. They ransacked and pillaged the enemy?s equipment and booty. Then, they took hostages.
When it became known to the Jewish leadership that kinsmen had been taken captive, a decision was made. No, not to see what could be negotiated for the release of the captives. No, not calling in the Red Cross or the Germans to establish contact with the hostage-takers. And no, not to sit tight and wait, in the hopes that some information of the hostages? fates would somehow be offered.
Instead, the Jewish leadership made an immediate decision to organize a multi-pronged night raid, with more than 300 troops, deep into enemy territory, in order to rescue the hostages. The raid was more than a success. The hostages were released, property was returned and the enemy forced to flee towards Damascus.
A journal of the events records them thus: ?He hurried after [the invaders], catching up with them in Dan. He divided [his forces] against them [and attacked] that night - he and his servants. He attacked, and pursued [the invaders] as far as Chovah, which is to the left of Damascus. He brought back all the property. He also brought back his kinsman... along with the women and the [other] people.?
By now, of course, it should be clear that the ?Jewish leadership? in question is the Biblical patriarch Abraham - or Abram, as he was still known at the time - and the incident described is the kidnaping and rescue of his nephew, Lot, during the battle of the four kings against the five kings (Genesis 14:1-24; Lekh Lekha, read last week in synagogues around the world).
And, as with all stories of the Bible, this one is instructive for Jewish leaders today. Particularly for those confronting a situation such as the negotiated extortion by the Hizbullah mafia in Lebanon.
Nowadays, we do not expect Ariel Sharon, a la Abraham, to lead the forces into battle himself - although he once very ably did so - but we can expect an Abrahamic resolve not to negotiate with terrorists. In that vein, negotiations with the Hizbullah should not center on releasing this or that terrorist in exchange for this or that piece of information or hostage. Such talk only increases the motivation of Arab terrorists to kidnap Israelis, as there is quite a handsome payoff for such merchandise and practically no operational costs.
Instead, in order to put an end to Hizbullah kidnapings, the Israeli government needs to declare, unambiguously, ?We have ceased negotiating with the Hizbullah, as the Lebanese terror gang has proven itself incapable of change - they attempted yet another kidnaping just last week. Thus, we now demand the immediate release of Elchanan Tennenbaum, and the bodies of our soldiers in their hands, or we will commence targeted killings of Hizbullah leaders anywhere and everywhere, along with not-so-targeted bombings of any Lebanese villages under Hizbullah control. We make this announcement only in order to allow the south Lebanese civilians an opportunity to flee. Nasrallah, you have 24 hours to comply before the campaign, which we will dub ?Operation Unfinished Business?, begins.?
There are those, like Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, who insist that the failure to comply with Hizbullah extortion might encourage the abduction of other Israelis, as Hizbullah attempts to raise the price for Israel. Of course, Shalom did not use that language exactly. Yet, logic dictates that if Israel stands firm in the face of extortion, and instead makes the extortionists pay a heavy price for their folly, then they will be forced to realize that there is no extortionary value in kidnapping Israelis.
However, there is a likelihood, then, that the Hizbullah would decide to turn to other tactics - like bombarding Israeli cities, or infiltrations from southern Lebanon. But if Israel is agreeing to negotiate over hostages out of a fear of Katyusha rockets on Nahariya, then, once again, Nasrallah has effectively taken hostage not just Tennenbaum, but the entire State of Israel.
For that same reason, the threat to Hizbullah has to be wholly disproportionate retaliation for its hostage-taking and a clear statement that no state, including Syria, is immune.
On the other hand, the Jewish value that underpins the Israeli willingness to release hundreds of terrorists in order to redeem one Israeli hostage and three dead soldiers is, over all, an honorable one. The hostage deal is motivated by the moral imperative to do all in our power to obtain the release of captives.
During 2,000 years of exile, as a downtrodden minority, the translation of this Jewish value into action meant, generally, payment of some kind to the feudal lord of the manor. However, now, as an independent state, the translation of that value has to be into terms more understandable to Abraham, our forefather; into terms Yoni Netanyahu, hero of the 1976 Entebbe raid, would understand perfectly well.
In short, no negotiations with terrorists; pursue them as far as Uganda and Damascus, if not beyond.
When it became known to the Jewish leadership that kinsmen had been taken captive, a decision was made. No, not to see what could be negotiated for the release of the captives. No, not calling in the Red Cross or the Germans to establish contact with the hostage-takers. And no, not to sit tight and wait, in the hopes that some information of the hostages? fates would somehow be offered.
Instead, the Jewish leadership made an immediate decision to organize a multi-pronged night raid, with more than 300 troops, deep into enemy territory, in order to rescue the hostages. The raid was more than a success. The hostages were released, property was returned and the enemy forced to flee towards Damascus.
A journal of the events records them thus: ?He hurried after [the invaders], catching up with them in Dan. He divided [his forces] against them [and attacked] that night - he and his servants. He attacked, and pursued [the invaders] as far as Chovah, which is to the left of Damascus. He brought back all the property. He also brought back his kinsman... along with the women and the [other] people.?
By now, of course, it should be clear that the ?Jewish leadership? in question is the Biblical patriarch Abraham - or Abram, as he was still known at the time - and the incident described is the kidnaping and rescue of his nephew, Lot, during the battle of the four kings against the five kings (Genesis 14:1-24; Lekh Lekha, read last week in synagogues around the world).
And, as with all stories of the Bible, this one is instructive for Jewish leaders today. Particularly for those confronting a situation such as the negotiated extortion by the Hizbullah mafia in Lebanon.
Nowadays, we do not expect Ariel Sharon, a la Abraham, to lead the forces into battle himself - although he once very ably did so - but we can expect an Abrahamic resolve not to negotiate with terrorists. In that vein, negotiations with the Hizbullah should not center on releasing this or that terrorist in exchange for this or that piece of information or hostage. Such talk only increases the motivation of Arab terrorists to kidnap Israelis, as there is quite a handsome payoff for such merchandise and practically no operational costs.
Instead, in order to put an end to Hizbullah kidnapings, the Israeli government needs to declare, unambiguously, ?We have ceased negotiating with the Hizbullah, as the Lebanese terror gang has proven itself incapable of change - they attempted yet another kidnaping just last week. Thus, we now demand the immediate release of Elchanan Tennenbaum, and the bodies of our soldiers in their hands, or we will commence targeted killings of Hizbullah leaders anywhere and everywhere, along with not-so-targeted bombings of any Lebanese villages under Hizbullah control. We make this announcement only in order to allow the south Lebanese civilians an opportunity to flee. Nasrallah, you have 24 hours to comply before the campaign, which we will dub ?Operation Unfinished Business?, begins.?
There are those, like Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, who insist that the failure to comply with Hizbullah extortion might encourage the abduction of other Israelis, as Hizbullah attempts to raise the price for Israel. Of course, Shalom did not use that language exactly. Yet, logic dictates that if Israel stands firm in the face of extortion, and instead makes the extortionists pay a heavy price for their folly, then they will be forced to realize that there is no extortionary value in kidnapping Israelis.
However, there is a likelihood, then, that the Hizbullah would decide to turn to other tactics - like bombarding Israeli cities, or infiltrations from southern Lebanon. But if Israel is agreeing to negotiate over hostages out of a fear of Katyusha rockets on Nahariya, then, once again, Nasrallah has effectively taken hostage not just Tennenbaum, but the entire State of Israel.
For that same reason, the threat to Hizbullah has to be wholly disproportionate retaliation for its hostage-taking and a clear statement that no state, including Syria, is immune.
On the other hand, the Jewish value that underpins the Israeli willingness to release hundreds of terrorists in order to redeem one Israeli hostage and three dead soldiers is, over all, an honorable one. The hostage deal is motivated by the moral imperative to do all in our power to obtain the release of captives.
During 2,000 years of exile, as a downtrodden minority, the translation of this Jewish value into action meant, generally, payment of some kind to the feudal lord of the manor. However, now, as an independent state, the translation of that value has to be into terms more understandable to Abraham, our forefather; into terms Yoni Netanyahu, hero of the 1976 Entebbe raid, would understand perfectly well.
In short, no negotiations with terrorists; pursue them as far as Uganda and Damascus, if not beyond.