Why do you think Hamas took hostages? I’m sorry to ask such an odd question, but hopefully before too long you will see why I did so.
The fate of the hostages taken last October has rightly been on all our minds. Many of us know people who had family or friends who were taken. At Seder my family said a special prayer, having first listened to a story about a hostage who had been a school friend of one of our number. I am sure there were many others reading this column who did the same.
The taking of the hostages offers one of the strongest ripostes to those who argue that the murderous events last autumn were a sort of heated protest that became more violent than was intended. If so, why did they take and hold hostages? The holding of hostages also shows the extent of the infrastructure of war and planning that Hamas possesses.
And simply listing those they took gives the lie to any suggestion that their targets are the military or ultra Zionists, or any of the other nonsense we have all had to put up with.
It has been intensely frustrating to see their fate too often ignored in media stories and political discourse, as if any government of any country can simply allow its citizens to be held and not react.
Sometimes it isn’t even properly made clear that Hamas doesn’t have to hold hostages or kill them. Israel is portrayed as the bad guy for killing people while rescuing hostages who Hamas could, after all, have released without anyone dying.
But above all, it is a human story. And one we all care deeply about. Last week I went to a wedding and a shiva. And there was a prayer for the hostages at both.
So it is hardly surprising that in Israel the fate of the hostages has become deeply political. And it is now producing protests, strikes and demonstrations, with mainstream support for all three. And mostly from the sort of people in Israeli politics with whom I have most sympathy.
Their demand is for Netanyahu to prioritise the fate of the hostages.
Which brings me to my opening question. Why do you think Hamas took the hostages in the first place?
And I’m afraid the answer is this: it took them in order precisely to force Israel into the position it now finds itself. It took them as a way of forcing the Israeli government to come to terms with Hamas. This was always the ransom demand. And it was always intended to be the ransom demand.
There are many reasons for Israel to cease fire. There is the sheer ghastly human cost for Palestinians, the moral burden of so many deaths; there is the nagging doubt about the efficacy of the action; there is all the risk to young Israelis in this terrible conflict; there is world opinion to consider.
And each of these makes a strong and urgent call on us. In particular the terrible death toll. Each of these has to be considered carefully and weighed against the consequences of ceasing. The consequence of ceasing is that Hamas retains part of its military structure and is able to regroup and come again. And there can never be peace in the Middle East while this holds.
For this – defeating Hamas, creating the necessary (though not sufficient) conditions for peace – is the purpose of this awful war, the argument for persisting.
Freeing the hostages is part of this, but it cannot be the endgame. Because if it is, Hamas will simply take more hostages. This is not a prediction, it’s simply history.
Israel has long made a policy of making huge concessions in exchange for those its opponents kidnapped. And the result, I’m afraid, has been more kidnapping.
So in so far as the Israeli opposition is arguing that the government should come to terms and end this terrible war, I think there is indeed an argument for that, if it can be done in a way that prevents the revival of Hamas. But it can’t be simply in order to free the hostages.
Daniel Finkestein is associate editor of The Times
