The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Hamas Attack Should Teach Us the Folly of Hostage Deals with Terrorists
The attack was in part the product of Israel's terrible 2011 decision to trade 1000 Hamas and other terrorist prisoners for a captured soldier. I and other critics predicted the terrible consequences at the time.
The horrific Hamas terrorist attacks against Israel revealed a variety of weaknesses in Israel's security policies, and perhaps those of some other Western nations, too. But one that has not gotten as much attention as it deserves is the folly of hostage deals with terrorists. Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, the likely mastermind of the recent attacks, was one of 1027 Palestinian terrorist prisoners released by Israel in 2011, in exchange for a captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. And one of Hamas's motives for the attack was to use the captured hostages to secure the release of other Palestinian terrorists held by Israel. Indeed, Hamas leaders boast they now have enough hostages to force the release of all their own prisoners.
At the time of the 2011 agreement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government was widely praised for demonstrating how much it values the lives of its people. I was one of the relatively few critics of the deal. Here's the key part of what I said:
I understand the emotional appeal of securing the release of a young soldier who has been in captivity since 2006. Nonetheless, the Israelis should have said "no." Far from saving innocent life, the deal puts at risk many more innocents than it saves. It also incentivizes future acts of hostage-taking by Hamas and other terrorist organizations.
Among the Hamas prisoners released in the deal are dozens who have committed brutal acts of terrorism against civilians in the past. If even a few of them commit further terrorist atrocities in the future, the resulting death toll is likely to far outweigh the benefit of saving Shalit. Moreover, such a lopsided deal (trading hundreds of hardened terrorists for an ordinary soldier) incentivizes future hostage-taking. Hamas officials have already said that the deal encourages them to kidnap more Israelis. If one hostage is worth 1000 prisoners, what can they get for two or three or ten? As one Hamas leader puts it, "[s]omeone who agrees to release 1,000 prisoners will agree to release 8,000 in the future….."
Both the Israelis and other democratic states (including the US) have signed bad deals to get hostages back in the past, and such agreements have repeatedly backfired….
Shalit's plight has been highly visible to the public for several years, and his friends and family have understandably been pressuring the Israeli government to secure his release at any price. By contrast, the identities of the future victims of the terrorists released in the deal, and the future hostages who will be taken as a result of it are as yet unknown. Because we don't yet know who they are, the media can't cover them and their relatives can't lobby to protect them. It is a classic example of public opinion focusing on the seen while ignoring the unseen.
I don't blame Shalit's family and friends. Most other people in their position would feel the same way. But the Israeli government, like any government, has a broader duty to all of its citizens. It failed in that duty when it put numerous civilians at risk in order to secure the release of a single soldier.
While it seems I was right to predict that the deal would cost far more innocent lives than it saved, I had no idea of the enormous extent to which this has turned out to be true. With well over 1000 dead, the terrorist attack in which Sinwar played a key role is by far the worst in Israel's history, and one of the worst in the entire history of the world. It is also the biggest anti-Semitic massacre since the Holocaust.
Some of my objections to the Shalit deal don't apply to some other exchanges. For example, I argued it was an inversion of moral priorities to endanger civilians in order to rescue a captured soldier. And most hostage deals with terrorists aren't quite as lopsided as this one was.
But the basic logic is the same. Simple Economics 101 says you get more of the kinds of activities you reward. If you reward hostage-taking, you will predictably incentivize more hostage-taking. Plus, the terrorists you release are themselves likely to go out and commit more acts of terrorism—as Yahya Sinwar did.
I hope this time the lesson will finally be learned. But I fear it will not.
As in the case of Shalit, hostages currently held by terrorists are very visible to the public, and politicians like Netanyahu have strong incentives to listen to the anguished pleas of their family and friends. It seems cruel not to!
By contrast, we cannot and do not know the identities of the future hostages whose seizure we incentivize through our deal. Nor can we know the identities of future victims of terrorists released in the deal. In 2011, no one could know the identities of the future victims of Yahya Sinwar. Their families were in no position to lobby government officials to save them.
I realize that, even now, some will reject the above logic on the grounds that I can only say these things because it isn't me or my family who are being held as hostages by Hamas. If it were, maybe I would think differently.
It may well be so. I have never had a friend or family member taken hostage and cannot know what I would do if I did. I have dealt with a number of death threats (most due to my advocacy of migration rights). I chose not to give in, in part because doing so would incentivize more such attempts at intimidation. But the small risk I took was utterly insignificant compared to that endured by hostages held by groups like Hamas.
Still, I would ask those inclined to give in to such emotional considerations to remember that the future hostages seized as a result of the deals we make today also have families who will suffer terrible anguish. The same goes for the families of future victims of terrorists released under those deals. We should strive to reduce the amount of such suffering, not increase it. And that means remembering Econ 101, and learning to say "no"—as the Israelis should have done in 2011.
I do not know if democratic governments are capable of credibly committing to such a policy. Short-term political considerations may well override it, as they did for Bibi Netanyahu in 2011, despite his own earlier criticism of less lopsided deals. One possible solution is to pass legislation barring such arrangements in advance, thereby tying officials' hands. There may be other approaches. At the very least, we need more consideration of how to alter the perverse incentives of governments in this regard. If the problem remains unsolved, there will be more Yahya Sinwars.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
And no mention of the more recent hostage deal? Which may also have contributed to this?
“Never underestimate Joe’s ability to fuck things up” — POTUS Barack Obama
Not to mention swapping Viktor Bout for Brittney Griner
Dammit! too slow, what you said
Resulting in the kidnapping of Evan Gershkovich.
Fortunately just a journalist.
I completely agree that we should not be paying ransom to get hostages back. The practical problem is that there aren’t that many other good options. Only two that I can think of: Go to war, or leave the hostages to their fate.
Britney Griner was not a pure hostage situation because she did in fact bring drugs into the country. Evan Gershkovich probably is a pure hostage situation. Maybe we just tell them that if they’re going to travel to places where hostage taking is a real possibility, they assume the risk.
SLO joe is only copying the Obama with the Jcpoa deal, the Obama pallet of cash deal.
The deals that progressives praised
As I said before- even chamberlain wasn’t stupid enough to find hitlers war machine
Yet progressives praised those deals
> As I said before- even chamberlain wasn’t stupid enough to find hitlers war machine
Actually Chamberlain’s government did, allowing the Bank of England to transfer Czech gold to Hitler in 1939:
https://www.rt.com/news/bank-england-nazi-czech-837/
What you do is embargo the country — do not let anyone travel to the country, do not let their citizens into the US.
You mean the deal where we have the hostages back home, and Iran does not have their $6B in hand yet? So it’s still being used as leverage against them?
That sounds like a pretty one-sided win for the US at the moment. Brilliant play by Pres. Biden.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/us-qatar-agree-not-release-iran-6-billion-prisoner-swap-rcna120135
Leaving a lot off the ledger, actually. The $6B was just one account, the one that got the publicity.
That $6B is chump change, and only an idiot thinks that is any sort of “brilliant play”. Since Biden took office Iran’s revenues from oil exports have skyrocketed, due at least in part to the admin’s easing of sanctions via non-enforcement (despite their bullshit claims to the contrary):
https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/6750https://amwaj.media/article/what-do-iran-s-growing-crude-oil-exports-mean-for-the-economy
Etc, etc.
Brett’s complaint, referring to the article he linked to, was that Iran got $6B in exchange for hostages.
That assertion is wrong.
If Brett wants to add to the “ledger”, he is free to do so.
Until then, sure sounds like goalpost moving to me.
Um, yes, but it was the rape and murder of hundreds of innocent people, and the taking of 100 or so additional hostages, that enabled us to renege on the $6 billion.
Hardly a one-sided win for the US.
So do you agree that the $6B was not used to fund the Hamas attack on Israel?
A yes or no will suffice.
That’s quite the ****WHOOOOSH**** moment for you there.
And Brett didn’t claim they “got” anything. He said it was part of the deal…and it was.
Howso?
Let’s recap: Iran does not have the $6B.
What other facts do you think are in play here?
Howso?
Let’s recap: Iran does not have the $6B.
Nobody said that they do…at least not in this subthread.
What other facts do you think are in play here?
My original response to your claim that this is somehow a “brilliant move” on Biden’s part spelled that out. Try reading it.
That was the substance of Brett’s original claim, per the article he cited, that I was responding to.
FFS. Learn how to read, you dipshit. Neither Brett nor the article he cited claimed that Iran had received the funds yet. It said that a release of the funds was part of the deal…because it was.
Of course, being the dishonest coward you are you’re still completely avoiding my explaining to you why reneging on that $6B (for the time being, at least) is not even significant, let alone the “brilliant move” you so simple-mindedly think it is. That $6B is nothing compared with the massive increase in oil revenues Iran has been permitted by the Biden admin.
Yawn. What are you even trying to argue at this point? Oil revenue now? Where is that in the article Brett cited?
More goalpost moving. That doesn’t even make much sense.
LOL, it’s hilarious that people on the right talk about Trump Derangement Syndrome when it seems impossible for literally any discussion to go by without the same people trying to blame Biden for it.
As Zarniwoop has pointed out, Iran doesn’t even have the $6B at this point.
You can disagree with the deal for the reasons Professor Somin outlines above, but attempting to link it to the attack on Israel is unserious and stupid.
Iran has the pallets of money from Obama’s appeasement.
Cool, cool. So we’re doing “thanks, Obama” now that we can’t pin it on Biden.
Biden is only copying obama’s appeasement
Even Chamberlian wasnt stupid enough to fun hitlers war machine. Yet progressives praise Obama’s and bidens appeasement and the funding of Iran’s war/terror machine.
Blame belongs with both obama’s and Bidens appeasement and the progressives who support the appeasement
Jesus, it really is post 9-11 again when not supporting invading Iraq was appeasement by Neville Chamberlains.
LOL, it’s hilarious that people on the right talk about Trump Derangement Syndrome when it seems impossible for literally any discussion to go by without the same people trying to blame Biden for it.
Because the foreign policy actions by the guy who has been POTUS for nearly 3 years now can’t possibly have any bearing on things!
No, because it’s literally impossible to have a discussion about any topic here without commenters trying to score partisan points.
No, because it’s literally impossible to have a discussion about any topic here without commenters trying to score partisan points.
Right. Referring to foreign policy actions toward parties involved in the current situation by the sitting POTUS (who has been in office for nearly 3 years) has no legitimate place in a discussion about the current situation.
The hostage deal was probably not responsible. A report this morning said the Hamas attack was two years in the making. It also said Hamas expected much more resistance.
That’s a… terrible article.
The US didn’t pay Iran $6B.
The $6B always belonged to Iran, but it was frozen. The US unfroze it.
Perhaps still objectionable. But it’s most definitely not paying a $6B ransom.
The goal of the hostage deals is not to “free hostages” but to “support terrorists [anti-Westerners]”, and in that regard they have been wonderful successes.
The rallys at Harvard, et al. have shown us, without a doubt, what the Left’s focus and worldview is.
What did you think “decolonization” was?
I tend to agree that there’s a certain element of that in our hostage dealings with the Middle East. We send money to known sponsors of terror, knowing, and even quietly acknowledging, that it will be spent on terror; How can the people who make these decisions not want the terror? Or at the least not care about it, because they don’t expect to personally be the victims.
By the way, my aging memory: Which President was it who, in response to a hostage crisis, sent the Navy to deliver the short message, “X alive, or Y dead.”? I can’t recall enough of the incident to find it, but it seems apropos.
As to the first paragraph isn’t that why many on the left support the policies that they do? They never expect to pay the consequences of their policies personally. For example New York City and it’s sanctuary city policy.
As to the second paragraph that sounds like Teddy Roosevelt and the Perdicaris Affair.
“Perdicaris Alive or Raisuli Dead”; Yes, that’s the incident I had in mind. Thanks!
All bad faith on the left. Unlike the right who are sincere and good.
This is some shallow analysis.
That is the reality
No, this is your reality. Which has ever been at variance with the actual world where those you disagree with are not cartoon bad guys.
Pretty shallow appeal to incredulity, Sarc.
I think Joe just gave a pretty good example of sarcastro’s point.
Yes, you’ve spotted it. Netanyahu was secretly trying to support terrorists.
Or didn’t expect to personally pay the price.
Yes, the left is all terrorists supporters. Decolonization is support for terrorism. Amazing insight.
What would you have Western Civilization do to these leftist terrorists?
Maybe you should re-frame this to: All terrorist supporters are from the left.
The question Professor Somin asks is: What to do as an alternative?
Answer: Do nothing. Give future leaders maximum flexibility in their their menu of options; do not tie their hands. We cannot know what situations our descendants will encounter, generations from now.
POTUS Biden spoke about the Simchat Torah pogrom with moral clarity; he gets props for that. It deprives Hamas of legitimacy and diplomatic support, and makes it unlikely the hostage takers get anything other than dead hostages, and an early grave. Perhaps we should learn from our own experience from 44 years ago.
Iran took American hostages in 1979. We know what not to do (since we completely screwed the pooch, policy-wise); that helps. Reagan had to deal with Hezbollah taking hostages and it did not end well. Reagan changed his policy over time. Even at that, not great policy. Nobody has truly handled it well. And here we are, 40 years later: Was the past prologue?
My conclusion is that the optimal way for a country to deal with hostage taking is to commit to hunting down and killing the hostage takers, regardless of the fate to the hostages. Paired to this, a complete denial of any benefit the hostage takers are asking for. If there is certainty that there is no reward whatsoever for hostage taking, and it results in certain death, hostage taking will dramatically lessen over time.
If you want to change the outcome, you have to change the strategy, Professor Somin.
Remember how early in the Ear-Ronian Hostage crisis (day 14 or 15 out of 444) they released all the female and black hostages?? They’ve been playing this bullshit for almost 50 years. Only good thing that came out of it was showing how fucked up the Military was after 7 years of post Vietnam reduction (“hey, we need you to fly 1000 miles at low level in total darkness, might want to try these NVG’s we just bought from the lowest bidder”) and it encouraged Iraq to attack Ear-Ron and start 8 years of A-rab on Persian blood letting. They should have let that war keep going forever, like one of those atmospheric storms on Jupiter,
Frank
There are a few things about that attempt that are not well known. There’s a pretty good chance that the Iranians knew that the rescue attempt was coming. John Walker had given the Soviets the capability to read most of the US Navy’s secure radio messages. There is some evidence that the Soviets forwarded that information to the Hostage Takers. The failure of the attempt may have been a blessing.
On the one hand, I agree. If you treat hostages and kidnappees as dead from the moment they are captured, you eliminate the incentive to take them captive in the first place. If I were ever taken hostage, my sincere wish is to be carrying some sort of tracking device that could be used to bring a guided munition directly onto my attackers.
On the other hand, if there is no incentive to keep hostages, that also means there is no incentive to keep witnesses and other bystanders alive. There will be fewer such crimes but the ones that still occur will have much higher body-counts.
Have your local vet microchip you.
I assume this is a jest, since I’m sure you’re aware that animal microchips are passive devices that do not have transmission capability. In other words, they must be actively scanned by a powered device from close range in order to provide a response/data/signal. I had to check the physical limits; Google tells me the effective scanning distance is on the order of a few inches.
You knew that, right? … right? Tell me you knew that and aren’t being serious.
… right?
… anyone, anyone? Bueller?
I assume this is a jest…
Congratulations on your keen grasp of the blindingly obvious.
When someone tells the joke with the punchline…
And then a mouse poked its head out of the guys pocked and said, “And that goes for your fuckin’ cat, too!”
…do you object by explaining that mice lack both vocal cords and brain speech centers?
Congrats on being in reality camp. But it’s not about you; I’m wondering if Mr. Bumble is in reality camp.
Yes, they need to identify the leaders who planned this attack and the individuals who participated….then hunt them down and kill them…possibly with drone attacks or with 1,000 lbs bombs that will cause massive collateral damage and many civilian deaths. Or give the terrorists the opportunity to surrender.
I don’t want suffering. Its too bad the world can’t agree to join Israel and offer the Gazans a choice…surrender the Hamas leaders and fighters…or die to the very last person.
Putin would simply take hostages of his own.
(We know what Trump would say about that.)
You can learn everything you need to know in life from “Fargo”(Polygram 1996)
Look what happened to Wade when he tried to pay the ransom, he gets killed, and his daughter was already dead, anyway, ya know. Ja……
Frank “You’re a smooth smoothie”
Yup. That’s why you don’t negotiate with terrorists.
Once you pay the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane.
We negotiated for Brittney Griner’s release, and then they took Evan Gershkovich…
“That these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” Abraham Lincoln November 19, 1863
“The Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself” Franklin D. Roosevelt March 4, 1933
“Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” John F. Kennedy Jan 20, 1961
“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall!” Ronald Reagan June 12, 1987
“I can hear you! I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” George W. Bush Sept 14, 2001
“Don’t, Don’t, Don’t, Don’t, Don’t” Parkinsonian Joe Biden October 15, 2023
Frank
Just shows that some peoples are worth more than other peoples, I can see releasing a larger number of Pee-On Terror-ists in exchange for some “High Value Assets” but for a friggin XX Basketball player?? who even knew who she was before? Anyone who can name 3 of the top 5 Scorers in the WNBA without Googling, you’re lying. I do know that the Atlanta team is called “The Dream” but only because it’s such an obvious choice.
Frank
I’ve got a pretty good memory if I do say so myself,
Ear-Ron released 1 XX and 2 Afro-Amuricans on day 15, 4 more XX’s and 6 more Afro-Amuricans on day 16,
but let’s go to the WikiPedia!!!!
The hostage-takers, declaring their solidarity with other “oppressed minorities” and declaring their respect for “the special place of women in Islam,” released one woman and two African Americans on November 19.[76] Before release, these hostages were required by their captors to hold a press conference in which Kathy Gross and William Quarles praised the revolution’s aims,[77] but four further women and six African-Americans were released the following day.[76] According to the then United States Ambassador to Lebanon, John Gunther Dean, the 13 hostages were released with the assistance of the Palestine Liberation Organization, after Yassir Arafat and Abu Jihad personally traveled to Tehran to secure a concession.[78] The only African-American hostage not released that month was Charles A. Jones, Jr.[79] One more hostage, a white man named Richard Queen, was released in July 1980 after he became seriously ill with what was later diagnosed as multiple sclerosis. The remaining 52 hostages were held until January 1981, up to 444 days of captivity.
Frank “Save Gas, burn Moose-lums”
It is a classic example of public opinion focusing on the seen while ignoring the unseen.
Which is what Somin is doing with this OP. What Somin has not seen, nor anyone else including Hamas, are the identities of former-hostages whom the Israelis turned while in captivity. Those are likely sources of targeting information the Israeli air force now uses to wage war.
It is more than plausible to suppose that explains the utility of lopsided exchanges. The more hostages released, the harder it is for the receiving party to vet them all to uncover spies.
Of course, any such exchange remains risky for both parties. That is why the Soviet Union took the precaution of murdering so many of their own citizen-former-prisoners when they were repatriated by the allies after Germany’s defeat in WW II.
Of course some will argue bitterly that in this instance the damage inflicted by Hamas is out of all proportion to any benefit Israel may have gained by making an exchange to plant double agents. That may be true; it will be a hard question to research.
Never negotiate with terrorists?? Oskar Schindler spent his entire fortune on bribes to Nazi SS officials and black market purchases: he has been declared Righteous Among the Nations.
Perhaps we must solidify the definitions of “never,” “negotiate,” and “terrorist.” Perhaps hard-and-fast declarations such as “never negotiate with terrorists” (or “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”) are ultimately unhelpful.
Perhaps an understanding of context would be helpful.
Isn’t the classic Somin answer to issues like this to demand open borders? Come on Somin be consistent, or is this like MV or COVID lockdowns where suddenly your stance flips and principles are revealed to be a sham because it actually impacts people you care about.
How much stupider can you be?
(The answer is: none. None more stupider. You’ve reached the nadir of stupidness.)
Congratulations on your successful completion of the Frank Drackman course on English for Commentators.
Is there a movie version of that, perhaps entitled “The Pursuit of Stupidness”?
In the part I’m guessing you think is Drackman-esque ungrammatical, D.N. is actually doing a riff on a line from from the movie “Spinal Tap.” One of the best movies of all time, I will add.
Bumble’s a little slow on the uptake.
Maybe he never saw the movie? I haven’t and only recall the “11 on the speakers” thing from other sources.
I forget that I am getting middle aged and that there are people who do not get my cultural references because they’re just too young.
Ah, the ad hominem with no attempt at addressing the issue. Thanks for proving you marxist twats have no logic or principles just a thirst for power by any means necessary with your empty response.
Ah, the ad hominem with no attempt at addressing the issue.
Silly goose, open borders are only for the USA. Israel and Ukraine are allowed to defend themselves.
And Martha’s Vineyard. Like I said, anywhere his principles cause discomfort to him or those near him he suddenly finds exceptions or praises the exact actions he condemns from others.
“Hi, I’m SomeGuy 2. I can’t tell the difference between an invading army and a bunch of people who want to wash dishes and mow lawns.”
The smaller point is the OP always advocates for open borders– so by his own logic, Israel should be open to anybody who walks across the Gazan border, in the same way he wants the USA open to anybody who walks across the Mexican border. He seems unconcerned that some of those people might be here to commit crimes, so he doesn’t get to use that as a reason for Israel.
The larger point is that we have no idea who’s coming across our southern border– an unknown multitude simply infiltrate and vanish with unknown intents. Of those intercepted, they say “ASYLUM!” with a nod & a wink, then vanish with “orders” to appear for a court date they’ll probably never show up for. Their intentions are also unknown. Even in the most benign scenario, when they really are here just to compete with Americans for housing and jobs, it’s an invasion because it’s contrary to how we as Americans have decided immigration should work. There’s no coherent way to argue for open borders for the United States of America, or even our current quasi-open borders and support Israel/Ukraine having closed borders. Open them up and, hey, if some of the entrants commit crimes it’s a matter for law enforcement. Doubt we’ll see Israel actually do this, because their government is smarter than ours.
“Hi, I’m SomeGuy 2. I can’t tell the difference between an invading army and a bunch of people who want to wash dishes and mow lawns, and I’m going to double down on that lack of perception.”
I don’t want to see mass killing, but Hamas must be made to regret what they did. Let all the prisoners go. But launch the invasion and leave nothing standing in northern Gaza. Destroy every building; collapse every tunnel (warn everyone to leave the tunnels, pump in napalm, then when the temperature comes down use explosives to collapse the tunnels.
After they destroy northern Gaza, do the same for southern Gaza. Move everyone to the remaining rubble in the north, and repeat the process. Leave them absolutely nothing. Then ship in tents. Allow no building materials in at all. Send them food, water, and power. Do not allow them any local power generation. Do not allow them any hospitals (their sick and injured will have to go to hospitals in Israel). Make life more inconvenient and degrading. Make the people wish for the pre-intifada days.
Like 9-11 the Hamas atrocity has unleashed the violent power fantasies of reactionaries who have learned absolutely nothing.
We learned if you kill terrorists they don’t do terror.
Al Queda was wiped out. We killed off ISIS. Israel’s mistake has been its too soft, no death penalty and it hardly ever finishes its work.
If that’s what you learned you’re even stupider than I thought. But I suspect you just don’t care because you like to act tough and if the violence keeps begetting violence that’s just more opportunity for tough posturing.
We killed off ISIS
The US is not actually responsible for all things in the world.
Are you denying we led the effort to end ISIS?
ISIS was a re-forming of Al Queda remnants along with other groups so it was just a continuation of that war.
Most of the fighting done against Isis was by other Muslims.
As it should have been, nobody’s as good at killing Moose-lums as other Moose-lums
Look at the bloodthirsty keyboard warrior in his natural habitat!
Delusions of genocidal war crimes isn’t good for your health. Perhaps you should take a few steps away from your computer for a bit to calm down and go fuck yourself.
Go fuck yourself motherfucker
If you outlaw dealing for hostages, what is left? Pronounce the hostages as dead and seek bloody retribution? I don’t know what to do and I am glad I am not responsible for making this decision.
It is tragic that the Palestinians in Gaza will suffer because of what Hamas did. Many of the innocent civilians suffering will become radicalized and will seek bloody retribution of their own. This is a reinforcing cycle that could end in genocide. How do we stop this?
It is tragic that the Palestinians in Gaza will suffer because of what Hamas did.
More accurately, it is tragic that anyone who did not support Hamas will suffer. The same may be said of any Japanese civilians who did not support their government’s actions in WWII, or Germans who did not support the Nazi regime, or…well, you get the idea. But such tragedies are unavoidable to one degree or another in war. They can be minimized to some extent, but not eliminated.
With Apologies to one of my Favorite Movies, “Glengarry Glen Ross” and favorite Actors, even if he did kill somebody, here’s how I’d negotiate with Ear-Ron Surpreme Leader Ali Khamenei First I’d bust his balls about how every Ear-Ronian Supreme Leader looks like Gabby Hayes (check it out, they do)
“Hey Gabby, Shalom, so here’s the deal, you stop all funding of Jizz-Boola-Boola, Ham-ass, Terrorism, here’s what you win” 1: You get to live (and a Cadillac, man, that part of the movie hasn’t aged well) 2: a set of Steak Knives,
and if you don’t, You’re “fired” (the Celestial termination)
Never understood why we’ve taken so much shit from these guys for 40+ years, 2 Ohio Class Submarines could take out their top 40 military/industrial targets within 20 minutes, lets see how tough they are then, and if they have any “Dead Enders” (HT D. Rumsfeld) left, rinse and repeat
Frank “Atoms for Peace!”
Its probably easier to take a tough line when your loved one isn’t being held hostage or you aren’t answerable to people whose loved ones have been taken hostage.
The main problem is that you do have to negotiate with terrorists, even if at a careful and even deniable remove, if you ever want peace. If you don’t, well, that’s being tough, at least.
That’s kind of backwards, I think: You have to NOT negotiate with terrorists if you want peace. Anything but killing them rewards terrorism, and you end up with more of it.
Funny how almst every conflict involving terrorists tends to keep trundling along until they actually start some sort of negotiation.
We never negotiated with Al Queda and that stopped “trundling along”.
Well, no, it returned as Isis, worse than ever, and that’s seen nearly twenty years of warfare and suffering so far, good job.
Then we wiped out ISIS.
No US troops are fighting.
If Bush hadn’t invaded Iraq nobody would have had to fight them at all.
And Obama Bin Laden would still be plotting more 911 attacks from his lair in Pock-E-Ston. A 5.56 x 45 to his frontal lobe took care of that problem, he hasn’t really caused any problems since then. (I did object to burying him at Sea, don’t the poor fishies have enough pollution to deal with?) I’d have preferred his head have been mummified and displayed at the Smithsonian.
When has negotiating with terrorists resulted in peace?
Northern Ireland.
I’m sure there might be more examples than just NI, but usually the terrorists have to agree to stop terrorizing before anyone will negotiate with them.
That’s the first stage of the negotiation.
Since I think the idea of exterminating Hamas is a pipe dream fantasy, the only viable long-term approach would be to reduce them, defund them and sideline them in favour of people who will talk.
If you’re interested in stopping terrorism in the long run, escalating the conflict isn’t the way to go about it. This holds true for Hamas as well, of course, but they may WANT the conflict escalated precisely so that terrorism can be perpetuated.
If it’s terrorism by wanna be genocides, escalating to the point of destroying them IS the only option, because there’s nothing they want save your death, so there’s no way to buy them off.
If it’s terrorism by people who have some less final aim in mind, you might buy them off, and not get more terrorism from them. But in advertising that you can be rolled, you’ll get terrorism from somebody else.
Just hunt down Hamas members one by one and kill them. Then they will not be a problem. I know, I know….others to take their place. They’ll end up dead too.
Stop Making Sense!(Cinecom International 1984)
When a situation has been allowed to fester so openly and rottenly for so long, the emergence of a dominant group like Hamas isn’t a surprise, which isnt to say it isn’t a shock. So, in a sense, everyone got rolled, and here we are. Israel have been proving how tough and uncompromising about terrorism they are for decades. And yet here we are.
The problem here is that the democratic nations often value their people while authoritarian regimes see their people as pawns. Hamas and groups like it are happy to leave their people to rot away. That gives them leverage. It has always been the case and will continue. Should we change are values? I don’t think we should because those values are our strength. Some of those Israel released will walk away and some will come back. The freed soldier and his family will always support Israel.