Here's an op-ed describing Jewish sensitivities regarding the captives. I urge all of you to sign on at the ADL website. We also need to get a campaign of support for these captives going here in Canada.

Israel and Her Captives

Would 300,000 Canadians rally for three missing soldiers?


In a country where politics is the national obsession, it was a singular event: a rally without a political message. On August 31st, over 60,000 Israelis squeezed into Rabin Square in Tel Aviv to demand the return of three Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hamas and Hezbollah. Israelis from all walks of life, from the deeply religious to secular cosmopolitans, joined together to rally for the three captives, Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev and Gilad Shalit. On a moment’s notice, this large crowd came out to show solidarity with the kidnapped soldiers.

It is hard to imagine a similar response taking place in Canada. In Israel, 60,000 people, one percent of the total population, showed up at this rally. Would 300,000 Canadians show up to rally for three soldiers? The Israeli dedication to rescuing any citizen in distress is exceptional. Israel’s history is filled with dramatic rescue efforts like Entebbe and Operation Solomon, as well as lopsided hostage negotiations.

Over the last twenty years, Israel has released over 6,000 prisoners in order to bring home nineteen soldiers and eight bodies of soldiers. In the famous “Jibril Deal," of May 1985, three soldiers were returned to Israel in exchange for 1150 Palestinian prisoners. Indeed, Israel’s enormous emphasis on repatriating captive soldiers is often exploited at the negotiating table.

Israel’s concern for captives has deep roots. Jewish law requires the community make the rescue of captives its number one priority. The Talmud considers the redemption of captives to be the most important religious commandment.

This emphasis on releasing captives is also a product of Jewish history. The Exodus from Egypt, arguably the most important event in Jewish history, places personal freedom at the center of Jewish ideals. The experience of exile plays a decisive role as well. As a minority without rights, Jews were particularly vulnerable to imprisonment and slavery. Captivity was more than a personal problem; it was an existential danger, one which threatened the morale of the entire community. The religious responsibility of ransoming captives became a way for Jews to achieve a sense of security in an insecure age.

Of course, the Jewish community’s diligence in redeeming captives was noticed by kidnappers. As a result, the ransom for captive Jews was often pegged at a very high amount, and Jews were targeted by pirates and highwaymen. In response, the Mishnah, an 1,800 year old text, decreed that communities must refuse to pay a higher than usual ransom for Jewish captives. (Yes, there was once a “normal” price for ransoming captives). Paying too high a ransom was now considered a hazard to the community, a course of action that would encourage future kidnappings.

The Mishnah’s decree on ransom engendered a great deal of debate. The emotional instinct to free captives and the rational response to limit ransoms often clashed. Sometimes the emotional instincts won out, and medieval Rabbis accepted several loopholes to allow the payment of large ransoms. At other times, communities acted more carefully, and refused to pay irresponsibly high ransoms. In one celebrated incident, a famous 13th century Rabbi, Meir of Rothenburg, spent the last seven years of his life in prison because he refused to allow his community to pay a ransom for his release.

In contemporary Israel, this debate continues to rage. On January 29, 2004, Israel released more than 430 Arab prisoners in exchange for the bodies of three kidnapped Israeli soldiers and an Israeli businessman who had been abducted in Abu Dhabi. This exchange was hotly debated in Israel, and ratified by an 11-10 vote of the Israeli cabinet. Many argued that the Mishnah’s logic remains persuasive, and any disproportionate exchange will only encourage future kidnappings. However, most Israelis backed the government’s actions. Supporters of these lopsided exchanges argue that in a country with universal military service, it is necessary for each soldier to know that he will not be abandoned in the field. In their view, making sure that no soldier is left behind is now part of the Israeli social contract and critical for military morale.

What remains unquestioned is the enormous emphasis all Israelis place on the redeeming captives. In the coming weeks, as various negotiations on the ceasefire in Lebanon move forward, headlines will begin to turn to the fate of the kidnapped soldiers. The safe return of Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev, and Ehud Goldwasser will play a critical role in the future stability of the region.

From an Israeli perspective, this makes eminent sense. After all, Israel is a country nourished by Jeremiah’s vision “that the children shall return to their homeland”. Israel simply cannot forget its lost children, and abandon three young men in the field.