Jewish Diaspora’s Role in Israel’s Hostage Crisis

On October 8, I reinforced my kids’ shelter in Israel, concerned about potential sleeper cells. I told my teenage boys that if a terrorist ever tried to take me hostage, I would fight back with all my strength to avoid being taken alive. I would not want the People of Israel in our homeland to be overly burdened by an exorbitant ransom demand, and that is certainly what would happen from my perspective. So, this is what is right for me. I am not telling anyone else what they should feel or do.  This personal conviction is not inconsistent with the Jewish value placed on human life.

Jewish Diaspora Concern about Israel’s Hostage Strategy May Be Misplaced

Negotiating with Hamas, in my opinion, encourages more kidnappings and endangers others through a cycle that ultimately causes greater harm. While saving a human life is paramount, the Torah and prominent rabbinical sages throughout history—including the Rashba, Chatam Sofer, and Chazon Ish—debate whether it is better to refuse negotiations to deter future kidnappings, even at the risk of current hostages. Some rabbinical rulings may not have fully anticipated the extent of the ongoing threat posed by released terrorists. Prominent rabbis have reflected on the Gilad Shalit exchange to underscore the significant number of those released who returned to directly endanger more lives, including some becoming leaders and orchestrating the October 7 massacres and the taking of hostages.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe was strongly opposed to the release of large numbers of terrorists in exchange for hostages because it incentivizes further kidnappings and acts of terrorism, leading to even more blood being spilled. The former Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Shlomo Goren, was also strongly opposed to negotiating with terrorists for hostage exchanges, arguing that the principle of saving lives requires us to consider the broader implications and potential dangers to the community.

There are leading experts and scholars who support the view that legitimizing Hamas through negotiations or prisoner exchanges is a moral hazard—and even reprehensible to some who have strong feelings about this—because it provides Hamas with a form of recognition and legitimacy that emboldens them to use terror and kidnappings, facilitates terrorism as an effective strategy, legitimizes violence, and undermines global counterterrorism efforts and international norms.  Both sides of this issue are supported by rigorous academic research, highlighting the complex conditions under which negotiations might be morally and strategically justified or condemned. These debates raise legitimate halakhic questions and significant moral concerns.

There is a reasonable basis to view Hamas’s tactics as part of a broader strategy that includes exploiting negotiations to gain legitimacy, raising serious ethical issues by potentially encouraging further violence against civilians.  While saving immediate lives is vital, traditional halakhic concerns combined with contemporary ethical analysis underscore the need to carefully weigh long-term consequences, including the psychological toll on families and the potential for future loss of life.

Supporting Israeli Sovereignty

Diaspora Jews can best support Israel by upholding its sovereignty and supporting the decisions of its democratically elected government, which is directly responsible for protecting its citizens and assessing the risks of negotiating with Hamas.

Families with loved ones held hostage are understandably under extreme duress, which can make it difficult to assess what is in the country’s best interest for long-term security. When someone under duress pleads for support to negotiate, it raises significant moral issues. This support risks their suffering being exploited as a political tool, potentially undermining Israeli sovereignty in life-threatening situations.  The psychological toll on families with loved ones held hostage, as well as on the families of fallen and injured soldiers, adds complexity to the ethical considerations surrounding negotiation, with strong and often conflicting feelings on all sides. I think the best position that non-Israeli Jewish people can take is to advocate for a unifying stance that not only protects the elected government’s authority to decide, but also ensures that Israeli citizens can engage in healthy, internal debate, free from external pressures that might undermine the country’s sovereignty.

Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik discusses the deep theological and existential connection between Jews in the diaspora and Israel, emphasizing the significance of unity and the centrality of the State of Israel. Based on his teachings, Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein emphasized the importance of Israeli sovereignty and recognized the unique responsibilities and challenges faced by those living in Israel. He believed that the decisions made by Israeli leaders, particularly in matters of security, should be approached with seriousness and respect, given their direct impact on the lives of Israeli citizens.

Respecting Israel’s sovereignty is essential for both its national security and the unity of its people. Diaspora Jews should support Israel in a way that strengthens this sovereignty, especially when it comes to its national security interests–without exerting external influence.  When someone under duress pleads for support to negotiate, it raises significant moral issues if the nature of that support potentially undermines Israeli sovereignty in life-threatening situations. Non-Israeli Jews should tread carefully, ensuring that their support for the suffering families does not exert undue influence on such sensitive issues—issues that have the potential to tear the country apart from within, which our enemies would undoubtedly seek to exploit.

The extreme duress experienced by those with loved ones held hostage raises concerns about their ability to judge what is in the country’s best interest. When any outside country seeks to manipulate the outcome of an electoral process, it risks compromising sovereignty, and any outside pressure on Israel regarding negotiations with Hamas has the real potential to threaten its ability to independently safeguard its citizens.

Making concessions to terrorists could compromise the future security of Israel, making it immoral to use the suffering of hostages as a political tool to justify negotiations. Throughout Jewish history, foreign influence and interference in Jewish sovereignty have been consistently condemned. The last thing anyone should do is exploit tragedy and pain to advance their own political agendas regarding who should govern Israel and how.

Let us hope and pray that we remain unified and wise in our actions during these extremely trying times, always ensuring that our decisions respect and preserve the lives of all involved.