Everyone knows Gilad Shalit's name. Everyone knows the pressure exerted on the government and around the world by his family and their supporters. Everyone knows the number of terrorists released, many of whom we know had blood on their hands. Everyone knows what a highly emotional issue it became, gripping the hearts of our people daily. And everyone knows that Yahya Sinwar was also part of that deal.
But how many of us know the names of the two soldiers killed when Shalit was overpowered and taken hostage? One was the only child of a mother who had made aliya from Russia.
It may be quite untoward of me to wonder about this, but I have. Towards the end of "Saving Private Ryan", a mortally wounded Capt. John Miller calls Private Ryan to approach him and whispers, "James, earn this." I can only hope that Gilad Shalit has always kept that idea in mind. That he understand the sacrifices made by those who followed him years later as a result of his release.
Like you, I opposed that Shalit deal. Here's why and his has nothing to do with me having a cold, callous heart.
Soldiers are supposed to protect our country and, tragically, soldiers die. Soldiers are supposed to protect our civilian population and not always the other way around.
Releasing that huge number of terrorists, thugs, murderers now would only pose a future danger to our civilian population - as we have seen.
Early on, as you, I also believed that the demonstrations should be held daily NOT in the square but outside the Red Cross's HQ, UNRWA's in Jerusalem, and outside the embassies of nations who fund these organizations and who vote in the UN against us each time the fake "State of Palestine" or the Arab League brings up some charge or another against us or a calls for a "cease fire" for a vote - of course, ignoring the fact that there was a cease fire in place on October 6. The "noise" should have been in those other less convenient venues and not in the square in front of the Tel Aviv library and the Museum of Art.
I used to volunteer at "Hostage Square", but stopped when I saw that the original, heartfelt demonstrations had morphed into anti-Netanyahu screaming fests, well attended by every hysterical Netanyahu hater, such as the one who kept and keeps showing up with a Bibi/Escobar - the drug cartel kingpin - sign and the one with the poster of the bloody hand over Bibi's face. Really, now.
Clearly, to me, the anti-judicial reform crowds had simply taken over from where they'd left off and hijacked the "Free the Hostages" movement. It seemed politically cynical to me.
During the time I volunteered, I was asked to stand in front of the tunnel art installation and monitor the number of people going in so as not to create any logjams. I used to explain the idea behind the "artwork" and point to some of the stickers on the wall.
But I also took it upon myself to tell certain groups very open and willing to listen - especially foreign tourists - that I, like you, did not believe that the slogan should be "Bring Them Home", but I reminded the visitors that Moses did not say to Pharaoh, "I've come to bring them home" but demanded of the monarch, "Let My People Go!"
And so that should be our slogan and demand as well.
I am not aware of the circumstances of the Gilad Shalit incident. But I am apposed giving up terrorists for anyone. It only leads to more violence. I wonder if this is the reason so many were taken on 7 October. History always repeats itself when not learned.
I appreciate your comment as a former volunteer at 'Hostages Square' and I'm curious to know more about what you saw, heard, experienced. Just sent you a PM.
Excellent post. The problem with negotiating with terrorists is that you’re negotiating with terrorists. I cried about the hostages every night for months and I still pray for them. But Israel has to win the war and put a stop to infinite terrorism. And yes the target should be the UN. I hope a Trump presidency will improve this situation.
You lay out the potential consequences of doing a deal but you don't lay out the consequences for not doing a deal. Perhaps you might like to try your Sophie's Choice game for that scenario as well, with scenarios as zero sum as the ones you paint for taking a deal.
We know the consequences for not taking the deal, because we have seen the consequences for past deals. What we don't know is if there will be any merit to staying the current course.
I think I stated the consequences of not doing a deal -- not negotiating with the terrorists -- before giving the first selection of forced choice items: attacking Hamas as if there were no hostages. That would have saved the hundreds of soldiers' lives who were involved in the urban warfare where they were killed by booby-traps and snipers. Would our leaders have been able to make that choice?
What would YOU have done under the conditions we have been forced to deal with?
I don't understand. I mean not doing a deal at the present juncture - what are the potential consequences? How do you think the war will play out in the absence of a deal? And of course you don't mention the fact that the choice you describe above would increase the chances of the hostages dying. There's a strong argument against doing a deal, but it bothers me that those making it generally don't admit that it increases the likelihood of the surviving hostages being killed.
And alongside the chances of surviving hostages being killed is the very real cost of the lives and physical integrity of our soldiers -- how many soldiers have we lost and how many have lost limbs because we are afraid to fight this war as if there were no hostages? We lose whichever way we go.
It’s the first time I’ve heard someone argue that more soldiers are being killed than necessary because of worries surrounding the hostages. Do you have any actual empirical evidence of this? Where are you getting this idea from?
While there are of course hundreds who care about the hostages in these rallies, they are also being used by those with more machiavellian desires. And that is to oust Bibi. T
The question I have asked from the beginning is why they chose the saying "Bring them home" instead of "let them go." What they chose means its all up to israel to effect a hostage deal rather than putting the blame where it belongs, on Hamas, Iran and Qatar.
It is a terrible choice and yet it is not. You do not sacrifice 10 million people for 100. And if we are being true it would be sacrificing 14 million people, because the lives of the Jews of the world are at stake as we have seen as well. And no I do not have a child as a hostage and my heart goes out to them, but what kind of deal would be made? Sinwar was released in the Shalit deal. We saved him, and how many then died? (And no Shalit should never live with guilt. It's just an observation of what happened and why would Israel do that to herself again?)
I agree that Shalit is not to blame for the deal made in his name. Because of that deal, there are soldiers who leave instructions that if they are captured, not to make deals to get them back.
And I agree with you that it is a terrible choice and yet it is not.
A challenge of modernity is to recognize that enemies are people trying to kill you, while political opponents are people you have a disagreement with. Too much confusion between the two.
Neville Chamberlain wouldn’t spy on Mussolini because “gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail” but he spied on Churchill, his domestic opponent.
I’m not living in Israel so my question may seem silly but I see that Israel has an enemy that not only breaks agreements readily but has a literal spiritual practice of lying (taqiyya). Why not make a deal and then just do whatever else needs to be done? The image of Israel in the world’s eyes will not be changed.
We cannot do that because we need to be true to our word. We need the trust of those countries that don't practise taquiyya. We need to be known for keeping our promises. That's what I think.
I think we can protect our families and the country and be true to our values at the same time. The problem here is that the courts bend over backward to appease our enemies thinking that is the moral thing to do. We need judicial reform so that there is more balance.
Sheri Oz, being someone not in Israel now, I have seen how this choice is very hard to make. Israel is not the one who choices the ones to come home. Being a Vietnam Veteran, I have seen this happen with POWs. Giving up hostiles for them only would bring about more trouble for Israel. It has to be a deal for all at once and no hostiles released.
I have been following your posts here for awhile. I think you have a very analytical way of presenting facts, unlike our next president does. Keep up the good work and information.
I'm not sure how I feel about being compared with your next president (LOL) and I thank you for the compliment. I am glad you find what I write informative. I know that I learn a lot when I write because I am constantly looking things up.
Excellent post. Assessment and dilemmas well reasoned. The change of slogan makes so much sense. The comment that the Netanyahu haters hijacked hostage gatherings makes sense to me an outsider, who wasn't understanding the vitriol.
I've always thought the Netanyahu government made the moral choice in the conduct of the Hamas offensive, seemingly putting the hope of hostage rescue over wholesale destruction.
I also think Netanyahu is correct in not agreeing to anything short of the release of all hostages. And, after that release he should send the IDF right back into Gaza to clean out what remains of the Arab Islamists. World opinion could hardly be worse. Then resettle Gaza.
And putting the hope of hostage rescue over wholesale destruction was another choice I should have added to the list because the cost has been horrendous in terms of soldiers’ lives and injuries.
I agree. The moral/ethical path often has associated costs. That's why it's often the most difficult choice, but in the end, always the best choice. Freedom from tyranny and evil seems to demand payment in lives lost and those who become living casualties. 😥.
The demonstrators in "Hostages Square" should be tasked with coming up with the specifics of the price Israel must pay. They must come to an internal consensus on how many security prisoners shall be released; whether that includes any restrictions on releasing those guilty of murder and deadly terrorist acts and those who are known leaders in terror organizations; how much monetary compensation must be paid to Gazans for their suffering during the war; which areas of Gaza the IDF may retain security control over, if any; whether the restrictions and inspection regime for border crossings should be lifted; and whether Hamas inside and outside of Gaza should be left intact at its present strength (augmented, of course, by the released prisoners). The protests should be suspended until this unified proposal is agreed among the protesters, including the hostages' families.
Once the proposal has been finalized, it should be the subject of a national referendum. If a majority of Israelis vote to implement it, well and good. If not, the protesters should be ignored from that time forward as unserious and anti-democratic and unconcerned with Israeli security.
If my own children or loved ones were held captive now by Hamas I freely admit that my fear for their safety would likely not allow me to be level-headed and objective. In all likeihood I would be overwhelmed by my fears and my desire to see them returned safely home. Sophie's Choice is a great metaphor for the position Hamas's evil acts have placed the entire Israeli nation in and I would hope that the most important lesson Israel learns is that it must break away from this cycle of prisoner-hostage exchange and never again be placed in this position. From the beginning I have said the only "deal" on the table should have been the conditions for Hamas's surrender and the return of every single hostage. Whilst my heart goes out to all the hostages' families and loved ones, it seems clear from here in faraway England that the protests have been manipulated by the "anyone but Bibi" camp and even the cry "Bring them home!" is a politically motivated dig at Israel's beleaguered PM. I agree completely, the cry should be a resounding "LET THEM GO!"
This is a "dammed if you do and dammed if you don't" situation. There is to much emotion involved to make a judicial choice. I wished we had the courage to face our ordeal with more stoicism as so many times in our Jewish history and consider the hostages as the inevitable victims of the war, whatever the outcome while, at the same time trying to free them as much as possible militarily...and make Hamas and Co. pay an enormous price for it. We have to stop giving in to those barbarian's blackmails, that is their best weapon (and our Achilles tendon-weak spot) which they will use over and over again if not stopped from using it. Our soldiers didn't hesitate one second to risk their lives to free the hostages and defeat the enemy. We must absolutely review our approach to the conflict and wake up to regional reality. Compromise is not the way! We also have been the victims of an "inhouse" Tsunami of betrayals and negligence's we will also have to deal with that... I will remind ourselves that the folly of that Oslo political experiment also killed and maimed thousands of our people..."they" called it the "victims of peace" as if pursuing peace inevitably needed to, just as war, have its lots of victims too...
The sad thing is that if the hostages do come out alive, they will be physically, mentally and emotionally scarred for life. I don’t believe the Bibas children are alive unless they were taken and adopted by a gazan family to be raised as terrorists. They would not have survived the starvation that the other hostages have suffered.
I wish there was another way out of this, but I think the only option left is to let the hostages go, fight this war to the end, destroy Hamas and praise God for any hostages who have managed to survive the terrible ordeal
These are two separate things — the scarring for life if/when the hostages come out alive and letting them go and fighting the war to the end.
I often think about that — about the hostages being scarred for life and then I think about Holocaust survivors who came out of four years of torture, many of whom built good lives and contributed much to society. And then it hurts even more to think of the dilemma our leaders face.
Sophie's Choice is an interesting metaphor. I've been thinking of The Lottery, that story they had us read in secondary school.
Well said, Sheri. Well analyzed and presented.
Everyone knows Gilad Shalit's name. Everyone knows the pressure exerted on the government and around the world by his family and their supporters. Everyone knows the number of terrorists released, many of whom we know had blood on their hands. Everyone knows what a highly emotional issue it became, gripping the hearts of our people daily. And everyone knows that Yahya Sinwar was also part of that deal.
But how many of us know the names of the two soldiers killed when Shalit was overpowered and taken hostage? One was the only child of a mother who had made aliya from Russia.
It may be quite untoward of me to wonder about this, but I have. Towards the end of "Saving Private Ryan", a mortally wounded Capt. John Miller calls Private Ryan to approach him and whispers, "James, earn this." I can only hope that Gilad Shalit has always kept that idea in mind. That he understand the sacrifices made by those who followed him years later as a result of his release.
Like you, I opposed that Shalit deal. Here's why and his has nothing to do with me having a cold, callous heart.
Soldiers are supposed to protect our country and, tragically, soldiers die. Soldiers are supposed to protect our civilian population and not always the other way around.
Releasing that huge number of terrorists, thugs, murderers now would only pose a future danger to our civilian population - as we have seen.
Early on, as you, I also believed that the demonstrations should be held daily NOT in the square but outside the Red Cross's HQ, UNRWA's in Jerusalem, and outside the embassies of nations who fund these organizations and who vote in the UN against us each time the fake "State of Palestine" or the Arab League brings up some charge or another against us or a calls for a "cease fire" for a vote - of course, ignoring the fact that there was a cease fire in place on October 6. The "noise" should have been in those other less convenient venues and not in the square in front of the Tel Aviv library and the Museum of Art.
I used to volunteer at "Hostage Square", but stopped when I saw that the original, heartfelt demonstrations had morphed into anti-Netanyahu screaming fests, well attended by every hysterical Netanyahu hater, such as the one who kept and keeps showing up with a Bibi/Escobar - the drug cartel kingpin - sign and the one with the poster of the bloody hand over Bibi's face. Really, now.
Clearly, to me, the anti-judicial reform crowds had simply taken over from where they'd left off and hijacked the "Free the Hostages" movement. It seemed politically cynical to me.
During the time I volunteered, I was asked to stand in front of the tunnel art installation and monitor the number of people going in so as not to create any logjams. I used to explain the idea behind the "artwork" and point to some of the stickers on the wall.
But I also took it upon myself to tell certain groups very open and willing to listen - especially foreign tourists - that I, like you, did not believe that the slogan should be "Bring Them Home", but I reminded the visitors that Moses did not say to Pharaoh, "I've come to bring them home" but demanded of the monarch, "Let My People Go!"
And so that should be our slogan and demand as well.
Well said.
I am not aware of the circumstances of the Gilad Shalit incident. But I am apposed giving up terrorists for anyone. It only leads to more violence. I wonder if this is the reason so many were taken on 7 October. History always repeats itself when not learned.
I appreciate your comment as a former volunteer at 'Hostages Square' and I'm curious to know more about what you saw, heard, experienced. Just sent you a PM.
Excellent post. The problem with negotiating with terrorists is that you’re negotiating with terrorists. I cried about the hostages every night for months and I still pray for them. But Israel has to win the war and put a stop to infinite terrorism. And yes the target should be the UN. I hope a Trump presidency will improve this situation.
amen
You lay out the potential consequences of doing a deal but you don't lay out the consequences for not doing a deal. Perhaps you might like to try your Sophie's Choice game for that scenario as well, with scenarios as zero sum as the ones you paint for taking a deal.
We know the consequences for not taking the deal, because we have seen the consequences for past deals. What we don't know is if there will be any merit to staying the current course.
I think I stated the consequences of not doing a deal -- not negotiating with the terrorists -- before giving the first selection of forced choice items: attacking Hamas as if there were no hostages. That would have saved the hundreds of soldiers' lives who were involved in the urban warfare where they were killed by booby-traps and snipers. Would our leaders have been able to make that choice?
What would YOU have done under the conditions we have been forced to deal with?
I don't understand. I mean not doing a deal at the present juncture - what are the potential consequences? How do you think the war will play out in the absence of a deal? And of course you don't mention the fact that the choice you describe above would increase the chances of the hostages dying. There's a strong argument against doing a deal, but it bothers me that those making it generally don't admit that it increases the likelihood of the surviving hostages being killed.
And alongside the chances of surviving hostages being killed is the very real cost of the lives and physical integrity of our soldiers -- how many soldiers have we lost and how many have lost limbs because we are afraid to fight this war as if there were no hostages? We lose whichever way we go.
It’s the first time I’ve heard someone argue that more soldiers are being killed than necessary because of worries surrounding the hostages. Do you have any actual empirical evidence of this? Where are you getting this idea from?
While there are of course hundreds who care about the hostages in these rallies, they are also being used by those with more machiavellian desires. And that is to oust Bibi. T
The question I have asked from the beginning is why they chose the saying "Bring them home" instead of "let them go." What they chose means its all up to israel to effect a hostage deal rather than putting the blame where it belongs, on Hamas, Iran and Qatar.
It is a terrible choice and yet it is not. You do not sacrifice 10 million people for 100. And if we are being true it would be sacrificing 14 million people, because the lives of the Jews of the world are at stake as we have seen as well. And no I do not have a child as a hostage and my heart goes out to them, but what kind of deal would be made? Sinwar was released in the Shalit deal. We saved him, and how many then died? (And no Shalit should never live with guilt. It's just an observation of what happened and why would Israel do that to herself again?)
I agree that Shalit is not to blame for the deal made in his name. Because of that deal, there are soldiers who leave instructions that if they are captured, not to make deals to get them back.
And I agree with you that it is a terrible choice and yet it is not.
Excellent piece, Sheri. Nightmarish ordeal, nationally and personally.
Thank you for your clarity about this terrible situation. Allowing enemies to dictate terms is never good.
A challenge of modernity is to recognize that enemies are people trying to kill you, while political opponents are people you have a disagreement with. Too much confusion between the two.
Neville Chamberlain wouldn’t spy on Mussolini because “gentlemen don’t read other gentlemen’s mail” but he spied on Churchill, his domestic opponent.
Yes. This is one source of confusion in today's world.
I’m not living in Israel so my question may seem silly but I see that Israel has an enemy that not only breaks agreements readily but has a literal spiritual practice of lying (taqiyya). Why not make a deal and then just do whatever else needs to be done? The image of Israel in the world’s eyes will not be changed.
We cannot do that because we need to be true to our word. We need the trust of those countries that don't practise taquiyya. We need to be known for keeping our promises. That's what I think.
I understand that honesty is a key value however protecting the children of Israel is also important. No one wants to bring a knife to a gunfight
I think we can protect our families and the country and be true to our values at the same time. The problem here is that the courts bend over backward to appease our enemies thinking that is the moral thing to do. We need judicial reform so that there is more balance.
You’ve stated the dilemma very clearly. Heartbreak and more either way.
Sheri Oz, being someone not in Israel now, I have seen how this choice is very hard to make. Israel is not the one who choices the ones to come home. Being a Vietnam Veteran, I have seen this happen with POWs. Giving up hostiles for them only would bring about more trouble for Israel. It has to be a deal for all at once and no hostiles released.
I have been following your posts here for awhile. I think you have a very analytical way of presenting facts, unlike our next president does. Keep up the good work and information.
I'm not sure how I feel about being compared with your next president (LOL) and I thank you for the compliment. I am glad you find what I write informative. I know that I learn a lot when I write because I am constantly looking things up.
Excellent post. Assessment and dilemmas well reasoned. The change of slogan makes so much sense. The comment that the Netanyahu haters hijacked hostage gatherings makes sense to me an outsider, who wasn't understanding the vitriol.
I've always thought the Netanyahu government made the moral choice in the conduct of the Hamas offensive, seemingly putting the hope of hostage rescue over wholesale destruction.
I also think Netanyahu is correct in not agreeing to anything short of the release of all hostages. And, after that release he should send the IDF right back into Gaza to clean out what remains of the Arab Islamists. World opinion could hardly be worse. Then resettle Gaza.
And putting the hope of hostage rescue over wholesale destruction was another choice I should have added to the list because the cost has been horrendous in terms of soldiers’ lives and injuries.
I agree. The moral/ethical path often has associated costs. That's why it's often the most difficult choice, but in the end, always the best choice. Freedom from tyranny and evil seems to demand payment in lives lost and those who become living casualties. 😥.
a sad statement, indeed
A Modest Proposal:
The demonstrators in "Hostages Square" should be tasked with coming up with the specifics of the price Israel must pay. They must come to an internal consensus on how many security prisoners shall be released; whether that includes any restrictions on releasing those guilty of murder and deadly terrorist acts and those who are known leaders in terror organizations; how much monetary compensation must be paid to Gazans for their suffering during the war; which areas of Gaza the IDF may retain security control over, if any; whether the restrictions and inspection regime for border crossings should be lifted; and whether Hamas inside and outside of Gaza should be left intact at its present strength (augmented, of course, by the released prisoners). The protests should be suspended until this unified proposal is agreed among the protesters, including the hostages' families.
Once the proposal has been finalized, it should be the subject of a national referendum. If a majority of Israelis vote to implement it, well and good. If not, the protesters should be ignored from that time forward as unserious and anti-democratic and unconcerned with Israeli security.
I like this proposal very much.
If my own children or loved ones were held captive now by Hamas I freely admit that my fear for their safety would likely not allow me to be level-headed and objective. In all likeihood I would be overwhelmed by my fears and my desire to see them returned safely home. Sophie's Choice is a great metaphor for the position Hamas's evil acts have placed the entire Israeli nation in and I would hope that the most important lesson Israel learns is that it must break away from this cycle of prisoner-hostage exchange and never again be placed in this position. From the beginning I have said the only "deal" on the table should have been the conditions for Hamas's surrender and the return of every single hostage. Whilst my heart goes out to all the hostages' families and loved ones, it seems clear from here in faraway England that the protests have been manipulated by the "anyone but Bibi" camp and even the cry "Bring them home!" is a politically motivated dig at Israel's beleaguered PM. I agree completely, the cry should be a resounding "LET THEM GO!"
You totally get it
This is a "dammed if you do and dammed if you don't" situation. There is to much emotion involved to make a judicial choice. I wished we had the courage to face our ordeal with more stoicism as so many times in our Jewish history and consider the hostages as the inevitable victims of the war, whatever the outcome while, at the same time trying to free them as much as possible militarily...and make Hamas and Co. pay an enormous price for it. We have to stop giving in to those barbarian's blackmails, that is their best weapon (and our Achilles tendon-weak spot) which they will use over and over again if not stopped from using it. Our soldiers didn't hesitate one second to risk their lives to free the hostages and defeat the enemy. We must absolutely review our approach to the conflict and wake up to regional reality. Compromise is not the way! We also have been the victims of an "inhouse" Tsunami of betrayals and negligence's we will also have to deal with that... I will remind ourselves that the folly of that Oslo political experiment also killed and maimed thousands of our people..."they" called it the "victims of peace" as if pursuing peace inevitably needed to, just as war, have its lots of victims too...
The sad thing is that if the hostages do come out alive, they will be physically, mentally and emotionally scarred for life. I don’t believe the Bibas children are alive unless they were taken and adopted by a gazan family to be raised as terrorists. They would not have survived the starvation that the other hostages have suffered.
I wish there was another way out of this, but I think the only option left is to let the hostages go, fight this war to the end, destroy Hamas and praise God for any hostages who have managed to survive the terrible ordeal
These are two separate things — the scarring for life if/when the hostages come out alive and letting them go and fighting the war to the end.
I often think about that — about the hostages being scarred for life and then I think about Holocaust survivors who came out of four years of torture, many of whom built good lives and contributed much to society. And then it hurts even more to think of the dilemma our leaders face.