Moral Clarity part 10: The symbolism, practice and consequences of hostage deals

I've been struggling with the deal. It's been a battle between heart and mind. My heart says it's the right thing to do. As human beings we have to do everything possible to get our captives released, even if it means giving the hostage takers a small victory. Even if it means they get time to re-arm, re-fortify, and re-organize. Even if it means a signal is once again being sent to the evil-doers that taking hostages is an effective strategy and pays hefty dividends. Even if, out of 240 hostages only 50 are being released and there will be 190 left for the criminals to make additional deals. My heart keeps telling me that we have to behave like human beings even if they are behaving like savages and animals. We have to show that we value human life even as they show that they could care less about the lives of their people. It's a question of 'who we are' versus 'who they are'. 

To give my heart more grounding in that effort to 'show who we are' I looked to Jewish thought and tradition. Unfortunately, in our history we've had many occasions to consider the lengths we must go to redeem our kin who've been taken captive, called pidyon shvuyim, in Jewish law. The payment of a ransom is categorized by our sages as a mitzvah rabbah, a 'great' obligation, or a duty of the highest order. According to Maimonides, "The redeeming of captives takes precedence over supporting the poor or clothing them. There is no greater mitzvah than redeeming captives, for the problems of the captive include being hungry, thirsty, unclothed, and they are in danger of their lives too.” In the Shulchan Aruch, the book that codifies Jewish Law, it says “Every moment that one delays freeing captives, in cases where it is possible to expedite their freedom, is considered to be tantamount to murder.”

My head makes other calculations. Ones that were not lost on our sages. They acknowledged the potentially far-reaching consequences of paying ransoms. “One does not ransom captives for more than their value because of Tikkun Olam (literally 'fixing the world' ie. for the good order of the world, as a precaution for the general good)." It is understood that this restriction is aimed at avoiding encouragement to kidnappers who will seek to take advantage of the extremely high value Jews place on human life, and understand that they can demand equally high ransoms. The long term consequences of paying an 'exorbitant' price for a captive has been seen in the recent past. In 2011, the ransom paid for the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit who had been held hostage for more than 5 years, was over 1000 prisoners, many of whom had been convicted for murder and acts of terrorism. Dozens of those released resumed their terrorist activities, including Yahya Sinwar, reportedly one of the masterminds of the October 7th attack. 

And then there is the symbolism of hostage-taking. What's actually at stake is not life, but something even more valuable, individual freedom. The reaction of Thomas Hand comes to mind. When he was told by authorities that his 9-year old daughter Emily had been murdered on October 7th, he initially responded by exclaiming "Good!" He later explained, “I was relieved. It is a very strange thing to say when somebody comes up and says, 'Sorry, your daughter's dead,' and you go, 'Thank God for that.' Because I did not want her to be kidnapped and in the tunnels of Gaza. That was worse in my head.” The original report was wrong. Hand's worst nightmare came true. His daughter was a captive. It reminds us that there is a symbolism to holding a person against their will that goes beyond the loss of life. It's what Hamas, and more importantly, their religious extremist autocratic sponsors in Tehran represent. They don't care about life. For them it's an attack on individual freedom that is more potent and symbolically valuable, because it's what they hate most about the West. 

This morning I listened to a discussion about Israel's restraint at the outset of this catastrophic conflict. The commentators discussed how admirable it was that Israel resisted the temptation to 'level Gaza' out of vengeance and retribution. 'They could have done that,' one commentator said, 'they had the means, and lord knows they had the desire. There were calls for it. But the leadership resisted the pressure. Cooler heads prevailed.' Then the discussion turned to comparisons with Jimmy Carter and the hostage crisis that you might say started it all. The 1979 taking of 52 Americans at the Embassy in Tehran by fundamentalist student revolutionaries. That crisis ended with the safe return of the captives after 444 days of agonizing negotiations, and a failed attempted rescue. The consequences of that event were far-reaching indeed. In the immediate aftermath it contributed greatly to turning Carter, the man who brokered peace between Egypt and Israel, into a one-term president. It also sent shockwaves around the world, signalling to terrorist groups, how relatively inexpensive and powerful hostage-taking as a strategy could be, bringing a world nuclear superpower to its knees. It was also the opening salvo in a 'holy' war waged by Iranian Islamic fundamentalists against the West that would continue for the next four decades until today. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the actions of Iran in 1979 and the American response to it inspired and emboldened millions of religious radicals across the Middle East and around the globe, and has cost hundreds of thousands if not millions of innocent lives.

The commentators this morning extolled Carter's restraint in response to the hostage crisis in Iran. 'He could have levelled Tehran if he wanted to,' they said, but he chose not to. Thinking about Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah today, I could not help wondering how the world would have been different had Carter not been so restrained.