Shortly after the massive troop mobilization following the Israel Defense Forces’ historic debacle of October 7, 2023, I spoke with a neighbor whose son had been called up and who had asked to speak with him privately before reporting to his unit.
He told me his son wanted to convey to him two requests. The first was where, if he were to be killed in battle, he wished to be buried.
The second was that if he would be captured by Hamas, alive or dead, he wished that his parents not do anything. He said he did not want any efforts made to release him, in any form. He did not want that, in exchange for himself perhaps, in the near or later future, any Israeli – civilian or soldier – would pay the price if terrorists were released.
Of course, the hostage predicament Israel finds itself in is complicated in that dozens of civilians, including babies, youngsters, and the elderly, are among those being held. They aren’t soldiers who are expected to pay the ultimate price. Should there be a lower bar of tolerance in their case?
Future potential victims
Or is Israel’s leadership obliged to make a judgment based on the expected end result of the releasing of Hamas terrorists? Are we only concerned with the lives of the abducted or with the lives of the future potential victims among the nine million Israelis or more who could become targeted?
Israel is particularly poorly served by those international agencies that are supposed to be visiting the hostages, caring for their medical needs, and actively intervening. The International Red Cross has been notably negligent in its mission. Many of the so-called “human rights” NGOs were and continue to campaign against Israel, playing a vicious role in the pro-Hamas propaganda.
Every claim emanating from Gaza regarding supposed negative Israeli actions is amplified, thus diminishing the immediate need to get Israelis out of their captivity. Starvation, malnutrition, plague or whatever is echoed and re-echoed without confirmation. The IDF orders evacuation to prevent casualties among the civilian population and the pro-Palestine proponents refer to it as another “Nakba” – catastrophe.
We all remember the ripping down of the posters of the hostages as one of the very first reactions following October 7. Jewish babies had no value. The visceral hatred was as startling as it was evil.
Here in Israel – after a too brief hiatus during which the “Kaplan Force” crowd sought to distance itself from the public’s reaction to their call for halting military service as a protest against the proposed judicial reform – their emotional prime-mover opposition to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has resurged.
The “Brothers in Arms” group recreated itself as a volunteer group to provide soldiers with clothes, food and even non-military equipment. But by the end of November, their drums and horns once again took the streets demanding elections and a state commission of inquiry.
The group around Moshe Radman Abutbol made a strategic decision to place itself at the service of the families of the hostages. Ronen Tzur, a grand PR maven who was involved in the anti-judicial reform activity, became the publicist for the main group of the families.
Unfortunately, it was Tzur who also led the PR campaign for the release of Gilad Schalit. The horrific developments following that 2011 exchange of one IDF soldier for 1,027 terrorists – who had killed almost 600 Israelis before their capture and imprisonment – weighed heavily, it can be surmised, on the mind of the prime minister who ultimately agreed to the deal. And he was Netanyahu.
Any one of the families should have been aware that selecting such a red flag would not help them to gain any deserved sympathy, especially as it was very apparent that the government was determined to eradicate Hamas’s military capabilities as well as its political influence. This time, the situation was different.
Even though Tzur was eventually forced to resign, the importance of highlighting the fate of the hostages was too important for the “Kaplan Force” demonstrators. It was as if they had taken the hostages hostage once again, this time as a sort of wrecking ball to undermine Netanyahu’s public support.
On the day that Netanyahu, accompanied with representatives of former hostages and family members, flew off to Washington, Uri Misgav of Haaretz, whose March 15, 2020, Facebook post “black flag” call ignited the anti-Netanyahu Balfour Street protests, posted out a call to attack Noa Argamani who joined the mission.
Decorations for Netanyahu
Misgav wrote: “Noa Argamani and her father should be ashamed of themselves that they agreed to serve as decorations on this insane and smiling couple’s flight… This is an embarrassment like no other.” Veteran journalist Dan Margalit then posted, “I join Uri Misgav, this is an embarrassment for Noa Argamani and her father… they are serving… as decorations for Netanyahu.”
Earlier in the week, Dani Elgarat, whose brother was kidnapped from Kibbutz Nir Oz, asked Noa not to go, saying her presence would undermine the chances of bringing home more hostages.
The Hostages and Missing Families Forum condemned the attacks against them, saying that “the decision to take part in the prime minister’s delegation to Washington is a personal decision of each family.” Nevertheless, an irresponsible pouring of kerosene on the fire of disunity has occurred and the hostage situation, instead of drawing us together, has been instrumentalized by the anti-Bibists.
Odeh Bisharat’s July 23 Haaretz column read: “Quiet, Netanyahu Is Addressing Congress. The Hostages Can Wait.” Yair Lapid, the opposition leader, had called on Netanyahu to cancel his speech to Congress unless he planned to announce an agreement for the hostages. Yossi Klein in Haaretz on July 21 intimated that Netanyahu was simply “letting the hostages die” and that is because they are an “obstacle to total victory.”
The 116 hostages remaining, of whom at least 44 have died, should be released from the political rancor in which they have been caught up.
The writer is a researcher, analyst, and opinion commentator on political, cultural, and media issues.