In the aftermath of a challenging kidnapping incident, Israel finds itself making a tough decision, striking a deal with Hamas. Despite the weighty consequences, the priority remains rescuing kidnapped children.
The possibility of striking Hamas post-ceasefire looms, but the odds of a clear victory picture are dwindling.
The deal is harsh, the price steep, and the risk great, but such considerations pale when children are involved. There's no room for discretion; Israel had no choice but to engage in this pact.
The sanctity of the contract, ensuring the safety of Jewish children, was shattered on October 7th. The failure to uphold this fundamental commitment renders the state bankrupt morally, ethically, and on the principles the nation was built upon.
Saying "yes" to this deal becomes imperative; it's the only way to begin restoring the breached covenant.
Writing this, I acknowledge my previous opposition to deals like the Shalit exchange. However, the context differs significantly. Gilad Shalit was a soldier, and the hierarchy dictates that the army exists to protect citizens, not the other way around. A child abducted from their bed disrupts the very essence of the Zionist adventure. Thus, any price must be paid to restore order to our sovereign state.
Gilad Shalit exchange vs. October 7 hostage exchange
Comparing this deal to the Shalit exchange, where 1,100 terrorists were released, including murderers, Israel seems to have made another deal with the devil. The repercussions will unfold later.
Unlike the previous deal, this time, no murderers will be set free. The primary cost is time, a heavy but not irreversible one.
Refusing the deal would significantly jeopardize the lives of the abductees. As the IDF plans to move into the south of the Gaza Strip, the risk of unintentional harm to the hostages increases. Opting for the deal allows Israel the option to resume striking Hamas after the ceasefire. The ball is in Israel's court, contingent on the leadership's determination.
Admitting the deal delays the operation, hampers momentum, and grants Hamas valuable time is essential. Sinwar's most coveted commodity is time. The diminishing chance of a decisive victory and the shrinking window of time create a challenging scenario.
Leadership must be transparent about the evolving reality, a truth currently evaded. Gantz and Eisenkot, temporarily in the government, leave Netanyahu to navigate public perception, as usual.
In an ideal scenario, a courageous leader would admit failure in protecting citizens, promising corrective action. Acknowledging the uncertainties ahead, patience, determination, and bravery become the need of the hour. The path ahead is laden with challenges, but eventual victory remains the goal.