Dr. Chaim C. Cohen , whose PhD. is from Hebrew U., is a social worker and teacher at the Hebrew Univ. School of Social Work, and Efrata College. He lives in Psagot, Binyamin. How can understand the morality of our government giving priority to military victory over the freeing of civilian hostages? Both our present government and many of the protesting hostage families do not want to admit the very uncomfortable truth: Since Oct. 8th there has been an inherent built-in contradiction between two contradictory goals of our war. T he first goal was/is achieving a real military victory, destroying the long-term military infrastructure and morale of our enemies. The second goal is/was freeing as many hostages as early as possible, and in the best health possible. The cold hard truth of the present war is that we might have freed most of hostages much earlier if we were willing to give up on attaining on a decisive military victory that would create a very real sense of long-term deterrence in the whole Middle East. Specifically, I am a right-wing supporter of the present government, but honesty forces me to admit that our current military achievements have probably been done probably at the cost of the lives of thirty hostages , and the ongoing cruel suffering of another sixty to seventy hostages. But - an earlier deal in April might have freed hostages, but would have also created the sense that the Iranian Axis of resistance had succeeded in their war attrition with Israel, and insured another Nukba-massacre, probably greater in its murders, in another few years. In contrast a hostage deal now, seven months later, (with the semi miraculous military accomplishments of the last seven months) backed by a friendly-assertive Trump government, means Israel has made real progress in building new security arrangements on its borders, and has successfully reestablished its military deterrence. It has not yet achieved the goal of eradicating Hamas's control of Gazans and Gaza. This article will now discuss the morality of the present government's (unspoken) decision to achieve great military accomplishments, possibly at the expense of the lives and certainly the suffering of one hundred hostages. The article argues that the government's decision was a very moral decision. The topics of our analysis of the morality of the government's unspoken decision My socio-historical analysis of our Israeli history shows that there are three basic systems of thought that have discussed the inherent contradictions/tensions between military victory and hostage release. One line of thought I term the "Entebbe Ethos' . The hostages are seen as 'innocent civilians kidnapped for ransom, and "that the army and government will go almost anywhere, do almost anything, and pay almost any price in order to save the lives of captured innocent civilian hostages." The army will thus demonstrate and actualize the heroic principle of the moral, brotherly solidarity that is inherent in the history and DNA of the Israeli pioneering and embattled society. I will argue that the current, ongoing urban-guerilla war of attrition on our borders, as organized by Iran and the axis of resistance, has made the 'Entebbe Ethos' outmoded and no longer relevant. The second line of thought is our 2000 history of Rabbinic wisdom and decisions on ransoming hostages that focused on trying to reconcile the interest of the welfare of the community with the interest of the welfare of the individual. The third line of thought is current liberal social philosophy which places prioritizing and securing the freedom, civil rights and welfare of the individual as the cornerstone-ultimate principle of the social contract between the individual citizen and the civil government to which he has agreed. We will now discuss these moral lines of thought in detail A. The 'Entebbe Ethos-Morality' of hostage Release I would characterize the historical, Israeli moral ethos about civilian hostages held by terrorists as the ethos of Entebbe , i.e. that the army and government will go almost anywhere, do almost anything, and pay almost any price in order to save the lives of captured civilian hostages. In the early seventies, at the beginning of our ongoing ' urban-terror-non-battlefield' war with Arab-Palestinian forces our political leaders (Golda Meir, Rabin, Peres) said they would not negotiate with terrorists because this would only raise the price the next time. But this policy soon disappeared. In Yitzhak Shamir's government released over 1000 Palestinian prisoners for the release of three (live) Israeli soldiers. In 2011 Netanyahu released 1,027 Palestinian prisoners. It is documented that the prisoners released in these deals went on to kill over 700 Israelis , and wounded many hundreds more. The released prisoners subsequently obtained leadership positions and went to encourage, organize and implement further Palestinian Arab terror and armed conflict. (As is the case of the Hamas leader Sinwar). In both cases the reassurances of the Israeli military and intelligence leadership that the release of over 2000 terrorists for four Israelis 'poses no security threat, and the army could properly handle all dangers proved to be horribly misleading, empty reassurance. What was the 'moral justification used by Shamir and Netanyahu to justify such 'destructive hostage deals'? They simply repeated the mantra "that when our soldiers go out to war, they should know we will make every effort to bring them home alive " The politicians also applied this vague principle in order to support releasing hundreds of terrorists in order to obtain the release of civilian hostages. Netanyahu admits in his autobiography that in agreeing to the Shalit deal he succumbed to the political pressures of a highly organized public opinion. Current urban guerilla warfare has made the 'heroic Entebbe ethos' militarily impractical Our enemies are fighting us, not on the open battlefield, but through a war of attrition of urban-guerilla warfare. Our terrorist enemies will make sure that taking civilian hostages will be a frequently used, highly 'lethal' weapon in their armory. Civilian hostage taking will become a frequent occurrence because the terrorists easily see the divisive damage it does to our national stamina and our willingness to pay a price that unquestionably endangers our national security. Thus terrorist-hostage exchanges can no longer be justified by some vague moral equation (such as "every soldier must know that we will everything to bring him home") detached from other significant factors influencing the degree of our miliary deterrence and superiority (and possibility of 'victory') over our enemies. Terrorist- hostage release must be very important but yet only one of many factors in determining a victorious geo-political military strategy . B. The Rabbinic social philosophy of hostage release In times of non-belligerence how did our Rabbis reconcile tensions between individual and communal welfare? For most of our history our Rabbis unfortunately had to deal with the basic moral question very frequently - what price is the community morally obligated to pay in order to free Jewish hostages? Jews were frequent and favorite victims of hostage taking because the kidnappers knew that the Jewish community, out of a sense of religious and national mutual obligation, would frequently pay an enormous price to free the hostage. In their decisions the rabbis thus constantly had to struggle with the often tragic dilemma: How to reconcile the opposing interests of the welfare of the individual ( i.e. ransoming the hostages) with immediate and present danger to the economic and social welfare of the community ( such as serious impoverishment in the present, and the encouraging of increasingly greater and more expensive ransom deals in the future ). In many cases the rabbis felt they had to subordinate the welfare of the individual to the welfare of the individual . I will cite two examples: One , the most famous example of such a case is that Rabbi Meir of Rotenberg, maybe the greatest communal leader 13th century European Jewry. He died after seven years of imprisonment because he placed the welfare of the community (not wanting to impoverish the Jewish community with a dangerous precent of an enormous ransom) above his individual welfare. Two , another example, many rabbis issued directives preventing hostages from initiating attempts to escape . Why? because failed attempts to escape, would mean that in the future, kidnapped Jews from the community would suffer from much more difficult conditions of imprisonment. (because captors would want to prevent escape). Here again, the rabbis subordinated the immediate welfare of the individual (escape) to the present and future communal welfare (preventing more difficult terms of incarceration in the future). In time of a national war of survival, how does Rabbinic social philosophy reconcile individual and communal welfare? – The answer - We are all combatants And today, the threat to the community is n ot one of a ransom based economic impoverishment (as it was in our history of exile amongst the nations). b ut the question is one of national survival, military victory or defeat. The threat of national survival thus convinces the overwhelming number of our rabbis to believe that religious law requires that the welfare of the individual Jew must be subordinated to the general welfare of the community/nation. Rabbinic law thus means that the welfare of the community/nation requires every Jew to risk his life and place the welfare/survival of the community/nation above his individual welfare, so that Israel will achieve military victory. In brief, just as Rabbinic law requires a soldier to be willing to die to save his country and people, so all civilians, including hostages, are required to risk , and possibly sacrifice, their life. In a war of national survival Rabbinic law does not distinguish between soldiers and civilians. We are ALL considered combatants. There is no distinction between civilians and combat soldiers . The moral status of the hostages is the same as that of our soldiers. Three basic theological premises of Rabbinic social philosophy On what theological premises does Rabbinic law teach that in time of a war of national survival every Jew (including hostages) must see himself as a combatant who should be willing to risk his life to obtain military victory? I would say that there are three basic theological understandings supporting Rabbinic law on this subject. One , metaphysically (Kabala) the individual Jew does not exist autonomously, with an existence distinct and independent from G-d and His Creation. Every Jew is intimately connected to, and one with , G-d. We are simply like a 'limb, a 'finger', a part of G-d, and G-d's Jewish people. G-d and the Jewish people are metaphysically One. Thus, since we are metaphysically one with G-d, we are thus also metaphysically one with the Jewish people. Thus, in a war of national survival, if the Jewish people as a singular Jewish people are attacked, we also are individually attacked. Thus, because of this Oneness between G-d and Jewish people, our individual survival is dependent on the survival/ victory of the Jewish people. Thus, we have no alternative but to subordinate (risk our life) our individual being and survival to that of our own Greater Being, G-d and His Jewish people. Two, a less metaphysical, more legal explanation is that the relationship between G-d and His Jewish people is one of Covenant . This covenant was first established between Abraham and G-d, and then legally formalized with the giving of the Torah at Mt. Sinai. A covenantal relationship legally means that the two partners, G-d and the Jewish people, are bound in a legal agreement of mutual obligations and benefits which are eternal, and mutually obligatory, and can never be abrogated. G-d cannot annul his relationship with the Jewish People, and vice versa. G-d is obligated to maintain and enhance the existence of the Jewish people, and we are similarly obligated to eternally maintain and enhance G-d's existence in this/His world by doing His mitzvot. A war of national survival means that the historical existence of the Jewish people is seriously threatened. Our personal and national covenantal relationship with G-d means we are obligated to do all that is necessary (including risking our life) to defend the Jewish people. We cannot simply ask 'what is in my self-interest?", but must ask 'what is in the interest of the Jewish people with whom I am bonded by covenant?" Three : a more sociological explanation argues that postmodern society is driven by a radical individualism that has created a society of very lonely, alienated people who are so centered in their own selves that many today do not want to take upon themselves to be contractually married or to have children. Rabbinic social philosophy argues that a Jew must 'escape' this malady of social isolation, and should bond with social institutions and values that 'transcend' his isolated individualism such as marriage, children, family, community, and peoplehood. A Jew can best develop his inner, personal self by bonding with the social institutions that transcend his personal self. This critical, existential, very human need, to bond with institutions that transcend the individual self justifies the requirement that all members of peoplehood be willing to sacrifice their lives in a national war of survival. C. The underlying cause of our ongoing national polarization: Liberal and Rabbinic social philosophies differ on how to reconcile individual and communal welfare Do not believe the media. The deep reason for the current polarization in our current hostage debate is not their and the Left's distrust of Bibi and his present government. The real reason is that Rabbinic and liberal social philosophies differ on how to reconcile national and individual welfare. Liberal social philosophy posits that the principles of individual autonomy/freedom and the securing of individual rights should be the main goals of democratic government. The obligations of the individual to the government, and the government to the individual are based on a contract of mutual self-interest . The individual is obligated to self-sacrifice to the government to the extent that the government protects and assists the individual. Many families of the hostages, and figures on the Left, thus argue that because the government 'failed to keep its side of the mutual contract, i.e. to prevent the mass October 7th massacre', the government must 'correct this failure, must do repentance' and obtain the hostages' release, regardless of how it affects the chances of military victory. In summary, Liberal social philosophy argues that the welfare of the community/nation should be primarily determined by the welfare of the individual. Thus, liberal social philosophy justifies forgoing national military victory in order to bring individual hostages home Now. In contrast, Rabbinic social philosophy argues that the welfare of the individual should be primarily determined by the welfare of the community/nation, particularly in time of war. Conclusion- Morality requires prioritizing miliary victory over hostage release Our government's (unspoken, but obvious) decision to give priority -in the short term- to military success over a high-priced release of hostages is a very moral decision. As frequently expressed in Rabbinic literature, during a war of national survival, the government must morally subordinate the welfare of the individual to that of the nation. These two above sentences are very painful for me to write. For ten years, as a clinical social worker, I helped over fifteen bereaved parents. The loss of a family member, whether as soldier or hostage is a wound that never ever heals. Our Rabbis also painfully felt this perennial truth. Despite this ongoing pain, they taught the social truths that this article presents above.
