No Good Choices for Gilad Shalit

Even as last week’s Netanyahu-Obama meeting drew international attention, the top story in Israel was the newfound fighting spirit of the family of Gilad Shalit, the soldier who has been held in captivity by Hamas since his kidnapping in 2006.

The family led a two-week march across Israel—extensively reported by the media—that ended in front of the Jerusalem home of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, where a permanent protest tent was erected. The family has vowed to stay there until Gilad is freed.

Israelis are certainly sympathetic, but remain divided on a fundamental question: How high a price can the country afford to pay for his release?

Speaking to a rally of supporters upon arriving in Jerusalem last Thursday, Gilad’s mother, Aviva Shalit, expressed her view in heart-wrenching words: “1,474 days of hardship and pain my son has endured in Hamas captivity. The time has come to say ‘stop! Enough!’… Parents who send their children to the army strike an unspoken deal with the state—a deal that is the central foundation of a healthy and moral society, one that does not allow the abandonment of a living soldier….” The family believes that whatever the price, it is time to bring Gilad home.

The Prime Minister took a more nuanced position in a nationwide address before his departure for the United States. While offering to free 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for the Israeli sergeant, he made it clear that Israel’s capacity for concession was finite: “The State of Israel,” he said, “is willing to pay a heavy price for the release of Shalit, but it cannot say ‘at any price.'” He set forth two principles. First, “dangerous terrorists will not return to Judea and Samaria from where they will be able to continue harming Israeli citizens,” since “I am not prepared to repeat a policy that did not stand the test of time and led to the murder of dozens of Israelis.” Second, Israel must “prevent the release of mass murderers, because their release from jail will vastly strengthen the Hamas leadership and inspire new waves of terror.”

The public agitation over Shalit seems uniquely Israeli. It is difficult—maybe impossible—to find an example of similar widespread popular protest on behalf of an individual captured soldier in any other democratic country. The uniqueness of Jewish history may have something to do with this. As minorities wherever they dwelt, Jews were often subjected to kidnapping for ransom, and responded by prioritizing the principle of redeeming captives. Thus even many Israeli Jews who are not religious employ the 12th-century rulings of Maimonides in their arguments for of against further concessions to Hamas.

Codifying the Jewish laws of charity, Maimonides writes: “Redemption of captives takes precedence over sustaining the poor and clothing them, for you have no commandment as great as redemption of prisoners from their captivity since it combines [the mitzvot to relieve] hunger, thirst, nakedness, and life-threatening danger.…” (Hilkhot Matanot Aniim, 8:10).

But Maimonides adds, “One may not redeem captives for more than their appropriate price, so that enemies will not pursue others to imprison them ….” (Ibid, 8:12). This warning has particular relevance today: as Hamas leaders openly call for further kidnappings, a sizable portion of the Israeli public opposes further concessions that will whet the Hamas appetite.

In setting boundaries to Israeli concessions, Netanyahu noted that some countries follow a policy that most Israelis today would consider unacceptable. “The United States… and other countries absolutely refuse to negotiate with terrorists over releasing hostages,” he said.

Yet while the logic behind a no-negotiations policy might seem self-evident, it is counterbalanced, for many Israelis, by the perceived duty to extract their native son from an enemy dungeon. Should we pay the price Hamas demands? Can we hope to bring it down? Can we stand on our terms indefinitely, aware of Gilad’s suffering and acknowledging the family’s agony? Can Gilad be asked to endure his captivity in order to protect as-yet theoretical future victims?

As Hamas leads Gaza backward toward medieval intolerance and violence, it also presents the Israelis with a new version of the classic medieval Jewish dilemma, which has no simple answers, only tragic ones.

first published at http://bit.ly/VmCb7Z