Gilad Shalit: Rejoicing After The Deal Is Done
If you’d wanted to hear my sermon, you’d have come to Shul, but...
I have taken a couple of days to process my own feelings about the impending prisoner exchange in Israel, which will include the return of Gilat Shalit after five years in Hamas captivity. By Shabbat Chol HaMoed I felt able to offer some thoughts on an extraordinary moment in Israel’s history.
I saw a quote from MK Yisrael Hasson which sums up my stance beautifully: הלב שמח, הראש דואג – the heart rejoices, the head worries. Who is not filled with delight at the prospect of Gilad’s return – a Jewish boy, a soldier captured protecting our land, will soon be freed and celebrating with his family? Yet who is not also consumed with angst at the prospect of releasing 1000 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom were responsible for major terrorist atrocities? And perhaps more worrying, what are the longer-term consequences for Israel of vastly inequitable deals such as this? It is hard to escape the conclusion that this is a victory for Hamas and an incentive for further abductions.
Jewish sources have long debated this issue. The most well-know case was that of the 13th-century German-Jewish leader, Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, who was kidnapped in Lombardy in 1286. Tradition has it that a huge sum was raised to ransom him, but he refused to allow the community to pay the money for fear of encouraging other abductions. Even after he died in prison in 1293, his body wasn’t released for burial for a further 14 years. In more recent times, the view of Rabbi Yaakov Kaminetsky, a world-leading American scholar, was solicited during a 1970 Arab plane-hijacking. One of the passengers was Rabbi Yitzhak Hutner, a famous Rosh Yeshivah and Torah personality. Rabbi Hutner’s students were considering raising a large ransom for his release, but Rabbi Kaminetsky opposed this move. He argued that in wartime (and he considered the ongoing Arab-Israeli hostilities to be such a situation), the delivery of a ransom strengthens the enemy’s position, something unconscionable, no matter the alternative.
Yet in my view, this position, while compelling, is only relevant pre facto and must not determine our response to the Shalit deal post facto. This distinction is informed by a halachic rule about what one says about a poor purchase made by a friend – while beforehand one may say that one doesn’t like the item, once he or she has purchased it, one must set aside one’s reservations and be unfailingly supportive and positive.
The agreement over Gilad Shalit’s release is done. Whatever our misgivings about the deal and its consequences, we must all now thank God that it has happened and enthusiastically celebrate Gilad’s imminent return to his family. Any other response would devalue the significance of his release, spurn the efforts expended by so many on his behalf and divide the Jewish people.