The days of battle are ongoing, and the mobilization of the soldiers and the Israeli society's support for them awakens admiration for the powerful forces of life, solidarity, and mutual commitment that exist in Israel like no other society in the world. In contrast to this, there is a deep expectation that accompanies the Israeli public to reach a stage where the IDF will decisively defeat the murderous terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip and restore our rightful standing.
And now, voices about the expected consequences of a large-scale war are already beginning to be heard, along with the natural and desired concern for the well-being of the captives. In the following lines, I will outline the general legal and moral stance on this sensitive issue.
The central question before us is, what is the relationship and our public responsibility to the captives, and to what extent is it necessary to risk soldiers' lives in a ground incursion, or alternatively, whether it is appropriate to respond to Hamas's extortion to release imprisoned terrorists in order to prevent their killing.
This has significant implications, and it is likely that soon the media will begin to promote a 'humanitarian' agenda and pseudo-humanitarian discourse, which could potentially erode public support for the war, especially within the military, and create confusion.
To remind us, this issue was already discussed back in 1976 regarding the hostages of the Entebbe Operation, in which a French plane was hijacked to Uganda by German and Palestinian terrorists, with 105 Jewish passengers being held as hostages. The captors demanded the release of over 50 imprisoned terrorists in Israel and elsewhere, threatening to kill the hostages if their demands were not met promptly. Beyond the fact that this incident deeply affected the Jewish people as a whole, it also had political, strategic, moral, and halachic aspects.
In the religious world, there were two prominent opinions that divided between them on how to respond to the captors' demands. One was the opinion of the late Chief Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, may his memory be a blessing, who ruled that one should comply with the captors due to the immediate danger to human life and not be concerned about the potential consequences of the released terrorists, as it is a concern for future harm.
Rabbi Yosef, in his usual manner, substantiated his ruling with numerous sources from Jewish legal literature. In his conclusion, he wrote, "We must pay more attention to the immediate danger facing the Jewish captives when the sword hovers over their heads, wielded by the ruthless terrorists who threaten to kill them... Whereas the future danger that might arise from the release of the forty imprisoned terrorists is not an immediate concern today but rather a distant and future one."
In a lengthy and scholarly article, Rabbi Shaul Israeli ztz"l, a prominent figure in the Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox) world and the head of the "Mercaz Harav" Yeshiva, expressed his opinion regarding whether to comply with the demands of kidnappers. He believed that yielding to the extortion of the abductors is not a distant concern but an immediate and real danger. Therefore, the consideration should be more public and widespread, taking into account the safety of the State of Israel. He summarized his perspective by stating, "And in war, as mentioned, we do not take into account at all the possibility of endangering human lives, and considerations of saving lives do not exist. Therefore, if there was a possibility to redeem them by releasing the terrorists without endangering lives at this time, it would be a matter of religious duty, as it is an obligation to go to war without hesitation when there is no alternative way, such as surrender. For any act of surrender to their demands involves a degradation of the dignity of Israel, and it also constitutes a desecration of the name of Heaven. Therefore, one should prefer military action with all the associated risks."
The rabbinical approach of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and his justifications, it seems, did not meet the test of reality, as they are written in his response: "In particular, we are not sure that the terrorists who are released will return to carry out assassination operations in Israel after they have suffered from their wickedness, and the situation is doubtful and definite, and there is no doubt that he [the released terrorist] is surely a threat." The same can be observed in his response regarding territorial concessions in exchange for peace, as Rabbi Yosef eventually seemed to retract his initial stance towards the end of his days.
In any case, the appropriate approach should come from a broad public perspective that considers the welfare of the Israeli society rather than being driven by personal, individual concerns. During times of war, the perspective is elevated to the salvation and well-being of the collective, and this doesn't mean neglecting the pain and distress of the individual. However, the future and fate of the individual are dependent on the well-being of the collective, and sometimes the individual must temporarily set aside their personal interests for the greater good.
During times of war, considerations cannot be limited to the emotions of the individual. The society should adapt to a new, more general, and public discourse, even at the cost of individual well-being. In this post-modern era, it's a dual effort.
Another issue relates to whether IDF soldiers have an obligation to endanger themselves to rescue captives and the extent of this obligation. This dilemma is also relevant to modern combat against a merciless enemy. In addressing this sensitive and practical question, Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg, in his responsa "Tzitz Eliezer," concluded that in a time of war, there is no rule of "your life takes precedence over the life of your fellow" nor of "and you shall live by them" which is true in normal life situations.
Rabbi Waldenberg elaborates on the well-known words of Maimonides (Rambam) in his "Hilchot Melachim," stating, "This is the law, that one should divest himself of personal concerns and unite as one cohesive body with all his fellow combatants in the field of battle. Each and every one of them is obligated, despite the danger to their own lives, to rescue their comrade from potential peril, not only when their comrade is in clear and present danger but even when there is a doubtful threat to their lives."
The above considerations are general directions, and, of course, the halachic (Jewish legal) and moral decision-making process is under the authority of the Military Rabbinate, led by those who are certainly advised by eminent Torah scholars who are not estranged from the strategic policy of the IDF. The clearer this issue becomes within the framework of the Military Rabbinate and reveals leadership and responsibility, the more it is likely to influence the military ranks and decision-makers. In the hope of salvation and the subduing of the wicked arm.
