The death of three Israeli hostages last Friday is one of the greatest military tragedies in the history of Israel. But in a curious twist, that event may have helped Israel break the will of Hamas to fight on.
I had said for a while that there would come a point when Israel would have to decide to risk the lives of the hostages for the sake of the goal of destroying Hamas. Until it did, Hamas would be in control.
It made no sense to me that Israel would negotiate with Hamas while trying to destroy it, even for the lives of its own citizens. Actually, to be precise: it made no sense for Hamas to be negotiating with Israel.
Hamas appears to have come to the same conclusion. It broke off hostage talks that were being revived around the time the 3 hostages were killed. Hamas wants a permanent ceasefire, not just a pause.
A Hamas spokesman (the same one who promised more Oct. 7 attacks) explained the group's reasoning to Al Jazeera, basically saying that even a long pause lasting weeks would not be good enough, because Israel would simply keep fighting afterwards.
In fact, he said, there would be no reason for Israel to stop fighting after Hamas had given back the hostages, because the hostages were the only cards Hamas had left to play. He is right, and what it clear from his remarks is that Hamas believes Israel really is trying to win.
Or: Hamas believes Israel is prepared to lose some hostages to win.
That is a psychological victory for Israel. Hamas may yet negotiate, but when it does, it will be negotiating for things like safe passage out of Gaza, or asylum in Qatar, not for a permanent ceasefire.
I would much rather have seen Israel rescue the hostages. But it is possible that Hamas, seeing that Israel was prepared -- like Keanu Reeves in "Speed" -- to shoot hostages, believes it is going to lose.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
