Where Our Nation's Morale Resides

Marking the fourth anniversary of Gilad Shalit's capture, many in the country are uniting to call on the government to do everything it can to bring him back home. But even these people must concede that there are compelling reasons for the Israeli government's hesitation in releasing hundreds of terrorists for his overdue return. The question therefore is not whether there are costs related to an exchange with Hamas, but whether one believes such costs are prohibitive or not; and whether the erosion of national morale from the government's continued refusal outweighs the cost of capitulation.  


It goes without saying that the Shalit family is doing what every loving family would do, urging the return of their son whatever the cost. But the justifications for his release go beyond love, sympathy, empathy, and all the other terrible emotions they and all Israelis feel. People speak of the obligation, the unspoken promise that the government makes to Israeli parents upon drafting their sons, that no matter what happens, they will "bring their boys home." The failure to fulfill this promise, it is said, will lower the willingness to sacrifice and decimate national morale.


In reality, such consequences are hard to quantify. Even reviewing enlistment rates would not provide an answer, as there are many reasons for the presently-increasing rate of draft-dodging (growing Charedi population, increase in conscientous objectors). What's more, there's no indication that there was a drop in enlistment after Ron Arad's capture and continued captivity, nor after that of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.


More importantly, the national morale argument is a double-edged sword. There are many who feel - enlisted soldiers, reserves, and ordinary citizens - that agreeing to an exchange would seriously diminish their faith in the government. The government's central purpose, after all, is safeguarding the welfare of all of its citizens; and so for Israeli policy and strategic decision-making to hinge on and be dictated by the fate of a single individual is a dereliction of its duty.


And what about the loss of morale from releasing cold-blooded terrorists. Releasing such individuals in an extra-judicial manner undermines not only faith in Israel's justice system, but also the normative concept of justice itself, so important in a democratic society. It sends a message that justice is conditional and eliminates the deterrent effect of punishment.   And what about the loss of morale for those soldiers who risked (and often lost) life and limb trying to capture these terrorists and bring them to justice. Who speaks for them? These wholesale exchanges turn their missions into dangerous Sisyphean tasks. And what about the loss of morale for those whose loved ones were maimed or killed at the hands of prisoners. Can we disregard the victims of terror and the hardships of their families? They have to suffer the added trauma of watching the perpetrator released, to a hero's welcome no less.


As past swaps have demonstrated, the repatriation of our boys does not result in a buoyed sense of national morale. For even as Israel's dedication to its soldier-sons is reaffirmed, its morale actually seems to languish. Though comforted by the return of their countrymen, Israelis acutely feel the heavy costs of such an ordeal. A somber sense of helplessness sets in, softened only by their noble commitment to bringing the boys home. 


The government is clearly in a lose-lose situation: by refusing to submit to the terrorist demands it causes a loss of faith and morale; by repatriating captives, it endangers many more citizens, and causes a loss of faith and morale.There is no good decision to be made here, only the pitiable choice of bad and worse.
In the aftermath of the 2006 Lebanon War, the Winograd Commission of Inquiry identified the vital importance of adopting a hostage policy. The lack of some, or any, coherent policy is the source of the weakness, vacillation, and divisiveness that continues to characterizes Israel's responses.


No matter how this terrible saga concludes, Israel needs to formulate a policy by which it will be guided and restrained. It needs to equalize the asymmetrical negotiating positions so that terror groups are not dictating conditions and controlling outcomes. Rather than being at the mercy of terrorists, Israel needs to take a responsible approach and take the initiative. Though the government's hesitance to engage in a prisoner exchange is understandable, its failure to amend an unsustainable state of affairs is unforgivable and negligent. And that's what really causes a loss of our national morale.