|
Trending Topics
|
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/03/opinion/israel-hostages-gaza.html
A Hostage Deal Is a Poison Pill for Israel
(New York Times) Bret Stephens - The highest justification for fighting a war, besides survival, is to prevent its repetition. Israel has lost hundreds of soldiers to defeat Hamas. Thousands of innocent Palestinians have died and hundreds of thousands have suffered, because Hamas has held every Gazan hostage to its fanatical aims. Hamas was able to initiate and fight this war only because of a secure line of logistical supply from Egypt. Israel's control of the Philadelphi Corridor largely stops this. To relinquish it now, for any reason, forsakes what Israel has been fighting for, consigns Palestinians to further misery under Hamas, and all but guarantees that a similar war will eventually be fought again. Why do that? Some argue that Israel can always retake the corridor if Hamas fails to fulfill its end of the bargain or if Israelis feel their security is again at risk. That argument is a fantasy. Once Israel leaves Gaza, international pressure for it not to re-enter for nearly any reason short of another Oct. 7 will be overwhelming. Some 60 hostages are believed to still be alive. Any decent human being must feel acutely sympathetic to their plight. But sympathy cannot be a replacement for judgment. Israelis have spent the past 11 months suffering the bitter and predictable consequence of the Shalit deal. In 2006, Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was captured by Hamas and held in Gaza. He was released five years later in exchange for more than 1,000 Palestinian security prisoners. Those released included Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind of Oct. 7. The Shalit deal came about on account of intense public pressure to free him. A good society will be prepared to go to great lengths to rescue or redeem a captive, whether with risky military operations or exorbitant ransoms. Yet there must also be a limit to what any society can afford to pay. The price for one hostage's life or freedom cannot be the life or freedom of another - even if we know the name of the first life but not yet the second. That ought to be morally elementary.