The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Mission to Israel Part VI: The Hostages
Bring them home now!
[After a brief hiatus, this is the sixth post in my series on my mission to Israel. You can read Parts I, II, III, IV, and V.]
It is difficult to describe the extent to which October 7 impacted the psyche of Israelis. In particular, there is a constant awareness of the hostages. Walls and billboards throughout the country are plastered with the familiar sign: the person's name and age in red letters against a white background; a photograph of the person in happier times; and bold letters: "Bring Him/Her Home Now!"
From the moment you get off the airplane, you see over one hundred posters lining the ramp to customs.
Various locations curate different ways of remembering the hostages. At the National Library of Israel, a poster of each hostage was placed on a chair, with a book that person enjoyed. For the Bibas brothers, who were nine months and four years old when kidnapped, they had kid chairs and kid books.
The signs appear everywhere. The only experience that I can slightly relate to was the prevalence of American flags after 9/11. At least in New York, I think almost every kid brought an American flag to school for at least some period after the terrorist attacks. But eventually that patriotism faded; or, as I learned a new word, the patriotism became jingoism.
Artists also created illustrated versions of the sketches.
Again, the drawing of the Bibas brothers was especially heart-breaking. The younger son has now spent more of his life as a hostage than outside.
During our mission, we visited the headquarters of the Hostage & Missing Family Forum. This organization sprung up in the wake of October 7 to advocate for the interest of families of those who were taken hostage, as well as those whose bodies were missing in Gaza. In a fairly short period of time, a sophisticated operation developed.
This board depicts all of the various media outlets the group has appeared on.
But there are divisions. Not everyone agrees what "Bring them home now!" means. Is this message an ultimatum to Hamas? Or an ultimatum to the Netanyahu government?
Even among Israelis, there is a stark disagreement about how to handle the hostage situation. In years past, Israel went to great lengths to bring back hostages, including by releasing many dangerous prisoners--including Yahya Sinwar, who has become the head of Hamas. What is the cost of bringing back the hostages? What is the cost of not bringing back the hostages? These questions are exceptionally difficult. I think media coverage only shows the side of the poor families who want their loved ones brought home at any cost. But, as with any public policy decision, costs are never so easily balanced.
We met with one woman whose nephew, a soldier, was kidnapped on October 7. She described the agony of not knowing whether he was dead or alive. They held a funeral for him, with an empty casket. She later found out that he had been killed, but at the time, did not know where his body was.
Shortly after our trip, the body of Staff Sgt. Tomer Yaakov Ahimas, 20 was recovered from Gaza and brought to Israel. They were able to hold a proper funeral with Tomer's remains.
I will continue this series tomorrow with a post about the restricted surveillance tapes.
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
Another head hangs lowly
Child is slowly taken
And the violence caused such silence
Who are we, mistaken?
But you see, it's not me, it's not my family
In your head, in your head, they are fightin'
With their tanks and their bombs and their bombs and their guns
In your head, in your head, they are cryin'
(...)
Another mother's breakin'
Heart is takin' over
When the violence causes silence
We must be mistaken
It's the same old theme, since 1916
In your head, in your head, they're still fightin'
With their tanks and their bombs and their bombs and their guns
In your head, in your head, they are dyin'
It’s more left wing performance protest, designed to divide and weaken the Israeli people and to topple a conservative government. You know a day ending in y in the West these days. Soros and Co., hard at work with his minions.
You're right, it's an evil Jewish conspiracy against Israel!
To take an infant hostage...Jesus the awfulness...
"But eventually that patriotism faded; or, as I learned a new word, the patriotism became jingoism."
It's really hard for JB to be charitable to those he disagrees with, but maybe consider that some people thought (and in similar historical situations as well) the patriotism had been "co-opted" or used in an ugly way for partisan or personal gain and thus became wary of it.
Hey!!!! I got it. Just have Michelle Obama give a speech about bringing the hostages back. With, of course, the appropriate frown and tone of voice. Just look at how it helped all those girls kidnapped by Islamic terrorists. No way Hamas would risk the disapproval of Michelle.
But there are divisions. Not everyone agrees what "Bring them home now!" means. Is this message an ultimatum to Hamas? Or an ultimatum to the Netanyahu government?
It doesn't have to be one or the other. It could be an ultimatum to both. No matter how a war starts, it is always up to both sides to end it.
Is that so ? My recollection is that WW2 ended with the unconditional surrender of the bad guys, followed by the hanging of a respectable sample of them.
Yep. Also: Third Punic War ended with Carthage actually being destroyed, sowing the ground with salt, and forcing the aggressive inhabitants to leave. Turns out that works pretty well, Rome had a lot less trouble with the Carthaginians after that...
If you don't count the occasional slave rebellion, no.
The problem with (what I refer to as) the Stalin Option isn't that it doesn't work. The problem is that you have to be consistently as evil as Stalin.
I don't think Machiavelli was quite right about the merits of being feared and loved. It's much easier to switch from a "hearts & minds" strategy to the Stalin Option than the other way around.
Either way, we strive to be better people than Stalin and Hitler, which is why we don't kill civilians on purpose.
Easily put down rebellions.
The problem with (what I refer to as) the Stalin Option isn’t that it doesn’t work. The problem is that you have to be consistently as evil as Stalin.
The alternative is constant Islamic violence. Israel tried generosity and compassion. Her donations of food, electricity, and water were repaid with rockets and massacres. It’s playing nice that doesn’t work; the enemy has to know that by attacking, they are signing their own death warrant. At minimum, they should execute everybody in Hamas and accept however many civilian casualties it takes to get there. At maximum, they should destroy every building and leave Gaza a starving province of rubble, if there’s no survivors then oh well.
Either way, we strive to be better people than Stalin and Hitler, which is why we don’t kill civilians on purpose.
Equating simple self defense to Stalin and Hitler is lunacy. Gaza started this war and refuses to end it. Israel is fully entitled to fight to the hilt until they receive an unconditional surrender. Israel is acting like FDR in defeating Japan; lots of dead civilians from here to there. Too bad, so sad.
Equating simple self defense to Stalin and Hitler is lunacy.
It would have been, if that's what I had done. But I didn't. And I'd appreciate it if you could avoid misconstruing what I said.
Gaza started this war and refuses to end it. Israel is fully entitled to fight to the hilt until they receive an unconditional surrender.
Not by intentionally shooting at civilians it's not.
Israel is acting like FDR in defeating Japan; lots of dead civilians from here to there.
Yes, and that would have been illegal too under the post-WWII Geneva Conventions.
Yes, and that would have been illegal too under the post-WWII Geneva Conventions.
Okay, so we're not talking about the Stalin option; we're talking about the FDR option. Which worked amazingly well, but it worked so well that we then decided you're not supposed to do it any more. And every attempt to observe the supposed rules has been a failure. Sounds like we should think more like FDR and less like the USA in Vietnam.
Not by intentionally shooting at civilians it’s not.
Doctrine of dual effect. If a civilian happens to get killed by a missile targeting Hamas, it happens.
It would have been, if that’s what I had done. But I didn’t. And I’d appreciate it if you could avoid misconstruing what I said.
I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make here. You seem to accept that Israel is doing what FDR/we did, it's just that this known and highly effective tactic shouldn't be used any more. Really, Israel is infinitely more justified than the USA was, because Japan wasn't an existential threat to the USA the way Hamas is to Israel. Israelis aren't going to be convinced that they should fight the war in a way that pleases internet experts as they fight an existential threat.
Really, Israel is infinitely more justified than the USA was, because Japan wasn’t an existential threat to the USA the way Hamas is to Israel.
Also Israel is being waaay more restrained than the Allies were in WW2.
Gazans have a choice. All they had to do to avoid any casualties at all was release the hostages and lay down their arms.
Why they insist on carrying on is their own fanaticism, encouraged largely by dopey Europeans clucking about "violence on both sides."
If you don’t count the occasional slave rebellion, no.
which is why we don’t kill civilians on purpose.
A bit of light cognitive dissonance going on here, no ? What is a "civilian" in a slave rebellion ?
The sanctity of "civilians" collapses when there is no clear distinction between them and the "fighting forces." Which is most of the time.
You can respect the sancitity of civilians when your enemy strictly adheres to a uniform code, clearly separates his military installations from civilian ones, and does not use civilians in support activities for the military, including production and logistics. Even then, mistakes will happen.
If you are enormously more powerful than your enemy, and if you are willing to take greater casualties in your military, to protect enemy civilians, then you can cut enemy civilians a bit of slack even if your enemy fails to adhere to all the above conditions.
This is precisely what the US has done in its post Vietnam actions, precisely what Israel has done in its operations in Gaza, and precisely what the Brits did during the Troubles. But without any credit from the progs, libs and commies. For one dead baby is a propaganda asset.
Military activities take place in the real world, not in the courtroom or in faculty lounges.
“Anyone who clings to the historically untrue—and thoroughly immoral—doctrine that ‘violence never settles anything’ I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
I'm not sure that we should take Starship Troopers (either the novel or the movie) as guidance on anything.
Whereas the Cranberries ....
The Cranberries wrote an amazing song about the seeming hopelessness of a country ripped apart by deadly hate between two groups.
While Heinlein wrote a book about, or at least mentioning, the disastrous consequences of wallowing in sentimentality.
We're not hanging them anymore, because the death sentence is immoral, but the prosecutions continue: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/20/irmgard-furchner-germany-court-upholds-conviction-ex-nazi-secretary
Death penalty is not immoral. More wallowing in sentimentality.
No, it's really not.
The war with Japan ended with unconditional surrender. MacArthur made sure the British, French, and most of all the USSR stayed out of it.
Any problems with Japan today?
Really, that's a dumb statement.
They're all dead
"But there are divisions. Not everyone agrees what "Bring them home now!" means. Is this message an ultimatum to Hamas? Or an ultimatum to the Netanyahu government?"
Wouldn't an ultimatum to Hamas be "Send them home now?" although maybe that makes more sense in Hebrew?