The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it Resolved, Israel must agree to a hostage deal

Episode Date: September 12, 2024

Following the execution of six Israeli hostages in Gaza, Israeli protesters are demanding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agree to a cease-fire deal that would guarantee the release of the remaining hostages. The deal on the table, however, would force Israel to concede to Hamas’s central demand: that the IDF withdraw from the Philadlphi Corridor which separates Gaza from Egypt. Those calling for a ceasefire argue that saving the remaining hostages should be the highest priority for Israel, which can always re-occupy the corridor in the future should it present another security risk. Others argue that Benjamin Netanyahu is right and any deal that allows Hamas to retake this essential strip – whose tunnels operate as the supply line for weapons being smuggled into Gaza – presents a major security risk that Israel cannot tolerate. Striking a deal now will allow Hamas to recapture Gaza and guarantee that this war, which has cost too many lives on both sides of the border, will soon have to be fought again. Arguing in favour of the resolution is Barak Medina, a Professor of Human Rights Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Arguing against the resolution is Gadi Taub. He’s an Israeli historian, author, political commentator, and co-host of the popular Tablet Magazine podcast, Israel Update.   The host of this Munk Debates podcast episode is Rudyard Griffiths Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to [e-mail].   To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 15+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ Senior Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Editor: Kieran LynchBecome a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We've tried socialism all through the 20th century, and it failed every time. We should restore dignity to the working class and stop saying you need a credential in order to achieve the most basic, modest version of the American dream. Netanyahu is the worst leader the Jewish people ever had. He should be impeached. Genocide is the latest modern blood liable that anti-C mites use to justify their anti-Zionism. We should prioritize making sure that no more Ukrainians do. die that this war is brought to an end. All parents want to help children with their feelings, but I argue that not every feeling is worth paying attention to.

Why are these students covering their faces? I think it says something about their movement, about their ideology, and also simply the fact that they're also cowards. If we take the position of just giving up on the hostages, we risk the future of the state of Israel. This will be a sign that we are too weak to reach an agreement. Sacrificing 3,000 people in the future for 200 now is not a moral calculus that I'm willing to sign on. Welcome to the Monk Debates.

Every episode we provide you with a civil and substantive debate on the big issue of the day. Our goal with each and every program of the Monk debates is to arm you with enough information to make up your own mind. Today's debate, be it resolved, Israel must agree to a hostage deal. Following the execution of six Israeli hostages in Gaza, hundreds of thousands of protesters have taken to the streets of Israel's major cities demanding a ceasefire deal and the return of the remaining hostages home. The deal on the table, however, could force Israel to concede to Hamas' central demand that the IDF withdraw from the Philadelphia corridor, which separates Gaza from Egypt. Those calling for a ceasefire argue Israel can always reoccurious. the corridor in the future if needed. Right now, however, the big priority is bringing the remaining living hostages home and burying the dead.

Here's an Israeli protester reacting to the news of the murder of the six hostages. We're grieving. We're grieving the death of six hostages. They should have come back alive. They could have come back alive. We need a deal now. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, argues that a ceasefire deal now will send the wrong message.

Now the world will seriously demand that Israel make concessions after this massacre? What messages are sent to Hamas? I'll tell you what the message is. Murder more hostages, you'll get more concessions. That's not only illogical. It's not only immoral. It's done right insane. And any deal that allows Hamas to retake this essential corridor whose tunnels operate as supply lines

for weapons being smuggled into Gaza presents a major security risk that Israel simply cannot tolerate. Ending the war now will also allow Hamas to recapture northern Gaza and guarantee that this war, which has caused so many lives on both sides of the border, could soon have to be refought all over again. On this installment of the Monk Debates podcast, we challenge the essence of these arguments by debating the motion, be it resolved. Israel must agree to a hostage deal. Arguing for the resolution is Barack Medina, a professor of human rights law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Arguing against the resolution is Gaddi Tao. He's an Israeli historian, author, political commentator, and co-hosts to the popular tablet magazine podcast, Israel Update. Barack Gaddi, welcome to the Mug Debates.

Hello. Hello, thanks for having us. We could not have two more qualified. and timely presenters on today's podcast to take on our important motion, be it resolved, Israel must agree to a hostage deal. Barack, you're arguing in favor of the debate resolution. So we're going to put two minutes on our show clock and turn the program over to you. Thank you.

Well, I think that the choice that Israel is facing is between a deal with Hamas, which will require paying a high price and a decision to avoid this. cost and thus knowingly sacrifice the lives of the hostages. And to my view, the debate consists of at least four levels. And I hope that we will have the opportunity to cover them. One aspect is the effect of the discussion that we are holding as of itself. You know, the price of the deal is not fixed. And the public discussion about the price might affect the enemy's strategy.

However, given what we know now, I think that the meaning of avoiding the public discourse is one giving up the lives of the remaining hostages. The second issue that we should be aware of is the one of who should make the decisions. I think that consequences of the decision to refuse a deal are so grave that it cannot be accepted that one person alone, Prime Minister Netanyahu, makes this decision. It should be a decision that is made by the government as the entire group. The third out of the four aspects that we should discuss is the one that attracts most of the public attention. It deals with this comparison between the lives of known persons, the hostages, and the lives of unknown ones that might be harmed if in the future, due to the cost that Israel must pay, will be killed or something like that.

And I suggest that we should give preference to the lives of the hostages, which is a decision there, which is based on, our attitude toward risk, on considerations of distributive justice, on the moral debt that person whose life is at risk because of the failure of those in charge, and other elements of this kind that we will discuss this. But my main point is the fourth one. I think that the discussion does not end here. A refusal to a deal, we all must remember it, means that the war goes on, with hundreds or even thousands of Israeli soldiers and civilians killed in Gaza and in a war with the Hezbollah in Lebanon, which seems inevitable without a ceasefire in Gaza. In addition, of course, to the many Palestinians and the Lebanese

that will be killed. And that's from my perspective in considering the alternative of a refusal to a deal, one should include not only the lives of jehoshidizes, but also the devastating cost of continuing the war without any plan for the future. The cost to Israeli economy, it's growing isolation in the world and, of course, the harmful effect with the social cohesion of the Israeli society. And therefore, I think that a deal to release the hostages that will also include ending the war is not only the interest of the hostages and their families and not only the right thing to do from a moral perspective. It is also absolutely essential from the perspective of Israel national security. Thank you.

Thank you, Barack, for that opening statement. You're listening to our debate. today be it resolved Israel must agree to a hostage deal. Gadi, you're arguing against the resolution. Let's have your opening statement now. So first of all, I'm not against any hostage deal. I'm against the idea that we should have a hostage deal at any cost, which is now what's on the table. And what do I mean by any cost? The only deal that Hamas agrees to means total Israeli surrender and one must remember, it is also in stages. So if we look at the deal that Khalil Al-Qia, who is the deputy, Sinuars deputy for the negotiations with Israel, the deal that Hamas put on the table, it includes the following. Israel must end the war. It must pull out all its forces out of Gaza, including

the Nazarene Corridor, the Philadelphia Corridor, and the perimeter protecting Israeli villages adjacent to the border, and the reconstruction of the whole strip is part of the deal under Hamas. This is what Hamas is demanding, and the retreat of all the forces is in the first stage. We will leave the Philadelphia corridor in the first stage and all our forces out of Gaza in return for the first batch of the hostages. That means we will lose all leverage for the rest of the hostages, we will maybe able to save 18 or so live hostages, and the rest would basically receive a death sentence after that, because we will have no leverage. What is worse, since they are demanding evacuation of the Philadelphia corridor, what this means is they will

be able to smuggle the rest to Iran, and then we will not be able to find them ever. But I think the whole way Barack is framing this is wrong, because what the resolution means is total surrender, even if it meant just finishing this war without victory to our weakest enemy, that would be dooming Israel. Hamas would reconstruct its power in Gaza, and we will have many other October 7s, but we are surrounded by the ring of fire constructed by Iran, and the time is ticking for an Iranian nuclear bomb. That means we will not be able to break the noose that Iran has tied around us before they have a nuclear umbrella over their proxy forces. And they have found a tactic in which they can annihilate Israel.

We should be aware of that. And that tactic includes saturating the Israeli defense systems with very cheap weapons, which we can only intercept with very expensive technology. So that would basically mean a serious chance that, Israel would not exist in a space of a few years. Thank you, Gatti, for that opening statement. Now we're going to go to rebuttals, a chance for both of you to react to what you've just heard.

Again, two minutes or so on the show clock to you, Barack. What do you want to take exception with in Gadi's opening remarks? Okay. First, of course, we are discussing these issues between ourselves. It is clear that we depend on the position of Hamas. No one argues, at least I do not argue, that we should be willing to pay any price regardless of the consequences in order to release the hostages. This is not our question. The question that we are dealing with is specifically the Philadelphia corridor, but more generally I agree with Gaddi about ending the war.

What is the right way to end this war? And I think that there is no question that reaching or accepting the deal offered by President Biden or the deal that is discussed nowadays includes substantial cost for Israel. It means giving up on the idea of absolute victory, on all kinds of other dreams that people have. But the question is, what is the alternative? What is the alternative that we have to this deal that we have? include giving up on Israeli control over Gaza. And I think that if the alternative is the one

that we are having, I didn't hear any other alternative, the alternative that is on the table is just let's go on with what we have done in the last year or so. And we already know what does it mean. It means not only that there will not be any hostage left alive in the very near future, because if the IDF continues its operation, they are executed there. It also means that we have no real control over preventing a war in Lebanon, and we have no control over what's going on in Iran. I think that in considering a deal, and this is why I framed the question that way, we must take into account the consequences of non-deal,

and the consequences are even worse from the perspective of the fact. Israel. The main issue there has been, and it always is. We cannot escape from it. It is the issue of what is the plan of the government. The government just started this war, of course, without any other alternative. It is rightly so. It rightly opened the war, but it started the war without any plan, and it still does not have any plan, at least not a plan that we know of about the day after this war, or how to end this war, how to prevent the consequences. that we expect of continuing this war. Thank you, Barack.

Okay, Gadi, same opportunity for you. You can have a rebuttal of Barack's opening statement or what you've just heard now. Well, I think that the idea that the only way to return hostages is in a deal is at least dubious. The way we achieved a deal in November was by withholding a humanitarian aid until Hamas screamed help and was willing to give up hostages. and continuing military pressure. I think we should return to those tactics. I think since in the theology of Hamas, the only real price that we can exact from them is territory.

We should say that we will take 30 acres for every day that the hostages are not returned and annexed them to Israel. And that can be a leverage. That would be an amazing leverage if the Americans actually play a part in this plan and recognize the areas that we will be annexing. The Americans are not putting any pressure on Hamas. They have not let us apply pressure through withholding AIDS. Let me remind you that the aid is given over to Hamas,

whether we like it or not. Nobody else controls it. And that enables Hamas to control the population even further than it does. I disagree that what we will see if we continue the war is just more of the same. We are making progress, as we know. We hold the Philadelphia corridor, which is crucial. We had a delegation of NATO generals that were surveying the area, and their conclusion was unequivocally that we should hold the Philadelphia corridor

in order to put pressure on Hamas. I think that we do have a plan for the day after, and that is, as the war aims were phrased, the total destruction of Hamas's military and government, abilities. That would mean that Israel would have to stay for a while in the Gaza Strip until it dismantles the whole infrastructure, the educational structure, which brings kids, grows up children on the idea that killing Jews is the highest moral imperative from age three. And if we don't stop that, we will just keep getting more of the same. And the last thing, Barack speaks about the

the possibility of a war with Chisbalah as something that we should avoid. We can't avoid the war with Chisbalah. Chisbala is ten times more dangerous than Hamas. It's perched on our border. It's not less fanatic. Israelis describe it as neo-Nazi. And they can do the same to us. We cannot allow them to stay on our border.

We would have to take this threat out. Thank you. Gaddi. Now let me join the conversation and try to keep on our minds. questions that are gripping our listeners. And one of them is the Philadelphia corridor. It's the argument for whatever set of circumstances you may choose to get into this or not. It's the reason that B.B. Netanyahu has, as given the primary one for why he's insisting on Israeli troops remaining and thereby arguably jeopardizing the prospects for a hostage deal.

So, Barack, let's hear from you about, the argument for why the Philadelphia corridor is not a deal breaker and something that could be resolved or solved from a security or other perspective, either after a negotiation, a successful negotiation of a hostage reliefs, or maybe this is an issue that's being completely blown out of proportion in the first place. I'd love your analysis. Yeah. I think that this is an issue that was blown out of proportion in purpose. It's just an excuse to refuse a deal. Because the deal means for Netanyahu in admission of that we could not win this war. And it means that we'll have to release Palestinian prisoners that we are holding. It means that we will

have to leave the territory. And I think that the Philadelphia corridor is just an excuse for several reasons. First, as I said at the beginning, what we are helping is. now is a decision made exclusively by one person. He, and this is Prime Minister Netanyahu, he consistently ignores the positions of all. And I say all heads of the military, of the services of Israel, with the knowledge, with the responsibility, and the fact that he prefers to ignore the advice of them. And I believe that they know much better than, of course, from what I do and from what Goddy knows, about whether Israel should control the corridor or not.

Second, we have to take into account the impossibility of holding just the corridor. It's simply impossible. If there are soldiers there, they will be targeted by Palestinians from Rafa or other places. They can dig tunnels underneath the corridor. It's simply unuseful just to stay there. And the third aspect is, of course, we should not just give up, leave the territory, and let's hope for good. Of course, we need arrangements. We need some kind of assurances that Hamas will not be able to work his way through this corridor.

And the discussion should be about the conditions. It shouldn't be about if, but it should be about how. And I think that the suggestions that we should threaten to annex the territory, to conduct some kind of starvation of the individual, of people on the ground, and believe that there is even one chance that a liberal democracy in the world will be able to support us,

that we will not be completely isolated, taking these kind of measures. I think it's fanciful. We should be aware of the fact that these kind of measures are simply not relevant. They are not available for us. We will be in even worse position than we will be if we strike a deal.

And again, I think that this is, a compromise that is inevitable in the situation to occur in. So, Gaddi, a similar question for you. The senior officials in the IDF and Israel's security establishment have been public in their assessment that if the Philadelphia corridor was, quote, given up for the purposes of phase one of the hostage agreement, there's no reason why it couldn't be retaken. at a future date easily by the Israeli army. So again, for the international audience listening to you now and who's not on the ground there in Israel, why this seeming intransigence on Netanyahu's part about having troops remain there now, which is not only an impediment to furthering a discussion around

a negotiation, there's lots of other issues around the negotiation. we can get into those two, but is also causing Israel to pay a price with the United States that's very urgently looking for a deal and would like to see Israeli troops out of the Philadelphia corridor. And it's worsening your relationships with Egypt, who clearly doesn't like the precedent that's been said. So give us your answer. Why have the whole thing hung up on this issue when this corridor could be retaken at any time if the deal falls apart? Well, I think the military and the heads of the security establishment are right that the IDF can take the Philadelphia corridor at any time from the military point of view.

From the political point of view, this is a pie in the sky, as Brett Stevens rightly said in his New York Times piece, because the pressure would be enormous. We are rolling now, and there is a horrendous pressure on us, including on our supply lines of ammunition, to stop what we are doing. Once we stop, we will not be able to start it. is a complete illusion. Secondly, Barack is wrong, I think. It's not all the security establishment people.

Many of them are against it, including the head of the Mossad, and there's a whole list of others who do not belong to the clique that has failed us on October 7. And I think that we are not noticing what is going on here. The people who are trying to promote now, basically the cessation of hostilities, without Israeli victory, have a political horizon for their view. And the political horizon is a two-state solution, which they are trying to bring back to the table over and against the rejection of that idea by the majority of Israelis. Because their frame of reference is, I think, the Yongkipu war. They think that once upon a time after the Six Days War, Israel won a great victory and became

extremely arrogant, and then we were humbled by the Yom Kippur War, after which we were ready for a peace deal. They think the same about the first Intifada. We thought the occupation could go on forever, they think. Then came the intifada. We realized that we took a terrible hit, and we were ready for compromise. And so October 7, they see in exactly the same framework. We now got a terrible hit. If we finished this without victory, as happened in the Yom Kippur War, then the Americans will be able to broker a deal. But Hamas is... We will not finish it with a victory.

There is no victory. Oh, yes, there is victory. 250 people were taken hostages and they will not return. And there is no victory without their return. There is simply no victory. You can say victory, victory. There isn't one. It just...

Let me say something. It's saying buying the sky. Victory is unattainable. No, it's not. It's over. It's not over. It's we are making advances. Go to the IDFPR website and see how much

we advance every day in this war. Talk to Eagle Sauci about his son, making victories. But let me tell you something more harsh, if I may. If we teach our enemies that if they take hostages, we will not only release all their terrorists to attack us again, as we did with the Gilad Shalit deal, which released Sinoir, which gave us October 7, but we will also teach them that Israel is willing

to lose a war for the hostages. We have lost many other lives in order to win this war. We cannot afford to lose this war if Israel is to exist. Now, let me also address your point that we could not use stopping the humanitarian aid to Hamas or even just having the IDF distributed. This is a test case, Barack. This is a test case of whether barbarism can triumph over civilization, whether people using barbaric, horrendous, unbelievable cruelty can triumph over civilized society by using their own

values against them. And this is why I say that the best moves in this war are the moves that we made against America's resistance. We then prove to our enemies that they cannot hide behind the wall of our values while they just trample over them and burn women and children and kill babies. We will teach them that we do not surrender under any circumstances after someone with a genocidal ideology did this to our women and children. So it is, and by the way, by the American manual of the rules of war, a siege is not against international law. It is not against international law if the combatants are hiding within a civil population and it is their responsibility. You want to save your population. Give us our hostages.

You cannot act unilaterally on our moral laws while they have a free hand in violating them. Thank you, Gary. If I may respond. Yes, yes, Sparach. Have a response to them. I think that what we just heard means that all hostages will be killed. No one will survive. And this framing of the decision, of the discussion, as if we agree to a deal, it means that we lost the war and we are not willing to lose the war. It means that we will not be able to release the officers. And we should be aware of the fact that what we are facing now is to choose the lesser of evils from our perspective. Of course, we cannot win this war.

And the fact that we are not willing to admit that we cannot win the war is the reason for the difficult position that we are facing. And I have to say two things about that from a political perspective. First, Gaddi said that those who are in favor of a deal come from political motivation. What Netanyahu is against the deal exclusively from political motivation. Gaddi mentioned the deal that was made in November. The deal in November would be made just because guns and Eisencourt were there in the government. Because if they were not in the government, Netanyahu will lose his coalition because Smotrich, Benvir was against even that deal.

And he would not go against them, as we know now. And the fact that Netanyahu is not willing to take this deal is based on his political motivation, exclusively at political motivation. And second, about winning and losing. Obtaining a decisive win over the other side is completely out of the game. We cannot achieve it.

It's a dream. It's a nightmare. No one can win a decisive war on the other. And at the same time that without an agreement, both sides will suffer immense, you know, a biblical scale type of loss for both sides. We will go on with this losing a project for both sides. The only alternative is reaching a deal. So let me come back to Gaddi on this because it's an important point. Gaddi, the parallels, and you know them, are the U.S. invasion of Iraq, of Iraq, of course.

Afghanistan, the list is long of nations and countries who have been involved in occupations that have dragged on for years leading to, in the case of Iraq, hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths, many trillions of dollars of blood and treasure spent. So to gauge in a little bit of real politic here because we all care deeply. I know both of you do about these hostages lives as a just on a fundamentally human basis. But a little bit of repolitic here. Why isn't the hostage deal also in a sense an off ramp for Israel to consolidate the impressive gains that it's achieved through its campaign in Gaza and begin the second phase of this conflict, which is filled with known unknowns. We don't know exactly if there will be a foreign effort to reconstruct Gaza or who will be

the governing authority. But the point is there are only limited additional military and political objectives that can be wrung from Gaza at this point. And the longer you stay, the greater the risk that you are sucked into an Iraq-style morass of your own making. First, just a comment on the margin of what Barack said. Of course, Netanyahu's consideration are political, but it's his job to be political. It's not the job of the chiefs of the security apparatus to be political. And the idea that he is somehow a hostage of Smotrich and Ben-Gvier, he represents a whole coalition which demands a victory in this war, which represents a majority of Israelis, which is a democratic state

in which it is the job of the prime minister to fulfill the will of the majority of his citizens. And Netanyahu, as I said, is recovering in the polls because he's insisting on victory. Now you're comparing- So he was opposed the November of the deal with it. You think that he should have a poll- Let me finish.

Barack, let me finish, please. So the majority certainly believes that there is such a thing to win. Now, what you're saying, Rudyard, is a serious consideration. Are we thinking in a Vietnam style or an Afghanistan style or Iraq-style occupation.

But my examples are the occupation of Japan and the occupation of Germany at the end of World War II. We are dealing with Nazis. This is how Israelis view them. Their ideology is genocidal. They are supported by a regional power, which is the greatest terror sponsor in the world today,

and it is explicitly bent on a second Holocaust for Israel. We should not take this lightly. This is not another chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is another chapter of the Israel-Iranian war. It's the second chapter after 2006. And we must win this war against Iran. Because once they have a nuclear bomb, there will be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and there's a lot of money here. And this would be a danger to the world.

This is why, as Netanyahu said in Congress, this is a war between civilization and barbarism. And we are the front line of this war. The West should align behind us and make sure that we win this small war in Gaza in order to win the larger war against Iran. Because if we don't, world peace is in danger. And I know Barack's agenda, because Barak's agenda, because Barraq's agenda, because Barra, Bach wanted to pass a resolution in the Senate of Hebrew University, saying that the university as an institution supports a Palestinian state. So the agenda is to have Israel not win this war in order to impose on us against our will a solution to the wrong problem. And that solution

to the wrong problem will signal to Iran that no one is going to stop their drive for a bomb and regional hegemony. And these are actual Nazis, not like the Nazis. They are real Nazis bent on genocide. This is their ideology. So the idea that we can compromise with them somehow and reach, like they could have half a genocide, that is not an option. Yeah, but the question is, what does it mean to win the war? And of course, we all want to win the war. And in order to win the war, we cannot afford ourselves this absolute isolation that we are experiencing. We cannot afford ourselves this, the effect of the rifts in Israeli society. We cannot afford ourselves the collapse of Israel economy.

You cannot afford ourselves this idea that we will win this absolute, we will have this absolute victory over the Palestinians and what I understand by referring to this kind of solution. Before we entered Gaza, you said that before we entered Han Yunus, you said we should not enter Rafa, you said we should not enter the Philadelphia corridor. All this time you said we can't do it and we can. We are proving that we can. What are we proving? It's almost a year now.

We are proving that we are always wrong. If we could have reached an agreement a while ago, an agreement does not mean that Hamas stays there. An agreement means that Israel should make a statement. Just a day after October 7, Israel should make a statement. How will Hamas not stay? Okay, but if you say that Hamas should not stay there and you are willing to accept the Palestinian authority there, if you not refer to the entire Palestinian people as complicit,

if you are willing to, just a second, if you are willing to form a coalition, if you are willing to form a coalition with Saudi Arabia, with the Palestinian authority, with Egypt, with Jordan, this is how you win the war. against Iran. This is how the way we establish this kind of a possibility to live here. The idea that we can win by unilaterally just destroying Gaza. Hamas?

Destroying Hamas. What does it mean destroying Hamas? You have to destroy the entire population there? What is the solution there? The idea that we will go there, we will occupy the entire territory and we'll establish new school system, we will teach them that we are good and they are bad and they should like us and to believe that this idea will solve something it will only result in the destruction

of the state of Israel. It is not something that, well, you want to win and I want to lose. It's the contrary. What you offer is the destruction of the state of Israel. And Israel would not have been established in 1948 unless Israel, the Jewish leadership, agreed to the two-state solution.

This is our declaration. of independence. We are accepting the plan of partition of the UN. This is the entire story and it did not change in the 76, 77 years that passed since then. If we are not willing to accept a solution that the Palestinians are next to us, we are not at the aim of destruction the Palestinians as such. We will not be able to exist here. It's not something that we do a favor to someone. But if I can answer you, first of all, it's a pina sky to think that we can bring in someone if we don't defeat Hamas. You think the Palestinian Authority will defeat Hamas?

The Palestinian Authority is afraid of Hamas. The only thing protecting the Palestinian Authority from Hamas is the IDF Bionettes. So the idea that we can leave without defeating Hamas and someone else will do it is completely preposterous. Remember what they did to the Palestinian Authority in 2007 after they won the election, by the way. They just killed all the PA operative. That's one. Secondly, don't rewrite the history of Israel. The reason the state of Israel was established was because it won the war of independence. The Arabs never accepted the partition. There is no Palestinian authority that will accept the partition. The Palestinian authority is boasting that it kills more Jews in Judean Samaria than Hamas does. Their spokesperson are boasting of their participation.

in terrorism. So you bring exactly the right example. This is our second war of independence. And if we don't win it, we will be left with our blood in the water. You want to leave Hamas on our borders. You want to teach our enemies that they now have the right formula to bring us to their knees. And you are going to surrender to the ring of fire that Iran very smartly constructed around us. We were once in this situation, Barack. We were once in this situation, after Nazir constructed a noose around our neck, it took four wars before we could break that noose. You had better start realizing that we are in the beginning of a decade of wars.

And the fact that you think that we can do it while catering to the BDS forces that you will be able to prevent a boycott of Israel, of the Hamas supporters that have overtaken academia in America, is a dream. The American public overwhelmingly supports Israel over Hamas. And we should utilize that support in the long run. The idea that the front organizations of Hamas, you know there was an Israeli TV series,

they planted a Scandinavian woman as a volunteer in a human rights organization, and she dug in until she found that the most, money comes from Hamas. So in the name of human rights, they are trying to tie Israel's hand in order to enable the Nazis on our borders to regroup and reestablish their force. We can't have that. Hi, Rudyard Griffiths here, the executive director of the Mug Debates. Well, if you're enjoying the kind of civil and substantive conversations that we have at the debates, where we're really trying to get at the big issues and ideas that are driving the public conversation, I want to urge you to check out the hub. The hub is Canada's fastest growing digital

and news outlet. And like the monk debates, it's focused on those important conversations and bringing them to you in ways that are enlightening, enriching, and again, focused on civility above all. You can check out the hub right now at triple w the hub.combe.ca or open your favorite podcast app and type in The Hub Canada. You'll go to the Hub's channel and see all kinds of great interviews, roundtables, discussions with thought leaders from around the world. So, Monk Debate Community, check out The Hub. We think you like what you see, listen, read, and hear.

Do that right now at triple-W the hub.ca. Now let's get back to our Monk Debates program. So I want to come back on one other key factor of these negotiations and hear you on this point, Barack, which is Hamas has a demand of its own, in some ways equally as contentious as Netanyahu's desire to hold the Philadelphia corridor. That demand, the latest iteration of it, is an insistence that Israel release 100 high-priority prisoners for Hamas. These are individuals who've committed brutal murders, terrorist attacks, and other heinous acts of violence against Israel and against Jews.

For again, the non-Israeli, listening to this debate outside of your country, how is one to understand the moral imperative of the in Jewish culture and history and release these hostages and to have them free versus the seeming injustice, unfairness of these 100 killers being released into the West Bank, being lauded and celebrated as heroes by the Palestinian people. It seems a very, very hard circle to square. Yeah. There is no way to escape that the price is huge. And the price is huge not only in terms of

the injustice of letting these evil creatures to be outside released without spending the rest of their lives in jail. The main difficulty is the risk, as Gatti said, the risk that they will return to

commit terrible attacks against us. So there is a risk here. And this is something that we should not hide. But the question that we should compare is between the absolute certainty that the lives of around 50, I don't know, the exact number, no one knows, around 50 people that are held hostages will die. And the alternative is that we release these prisoners and we will end up with the risk that some of us might be me, might be anyone of the Israeli society, will be killed by these terrorists that are released.

And it is a very difficult comparison. But the regular answer, as you said, it goes back thousands of years to the halakhah in Jewish tradition. It is also basic theories of morality is that when we make these comparisons, we have to take into account the issue of attitude towards risk. The risk to myself, as one of the 10 million Israelis, is very low in comparison to the risk to each of these. people that are held hostages. The idea is that the lives of an identified person is worth much more than the statistical person, someone that we don't know.

And, of course, the uncertainty. There is always uncertainty. There is this likelihood that we will be able to prevent these individuals from committing additional terrorist attacks or other like that. There is no uncertainty that the hostages will die if we do not strike a deal. And we should take into account the effect of no deal on Israeli society.

The fact that in the last week or two, there are hundreds of thousands of Israelis on the streets, unwilling to accept this reality of the government sacrificing the lives of these Israelis, acting against basic morality, is something that is devastating to Israeli society. Gaddi will not be able to win his war continuing for 10 years of fighting with a devastated society, with people who are unwilling to be involved in this kind of a country, which sacrifices those people who were taken out of their beds because of this, the failure of both the leaders of the army and the prime minister. The prime minister is responsible for the fact that they are held hostages and the prime minister should be willing to pay the price by releasing the prisoners and leaving his position.

This is the basic principle. It is so obvious that it's very hard to understand how not to accept this kind of logic. Okay, Gaddi. Before we go to closing statements, let's hear you on the key Hamas demand of these prisoner releases. First of all, the numbers. Hamas asks for 50 Palestinian prisoners for every female soldier they release, 30 for every civilian they release, and 500 for every soldier it released. This means emptying our jails of all murderers.

Now, what Barak is presenting here is the logic of defeat. We made the terrible mistake of paying with 1,000 terrorists for Gilad Shal. And everybody said, you will get a worse, you will get a worse case of hostages. If we had only held fast there, we would not be here. If we taught them there that with hostages, they can't bring us to our knees. It would mean probably sacrificing Gilad Shalit, but we sacrifice many other lives that are not worthless with soldiers who are being killed in war. If we had taught them that lesson there, we would not be here.

Now they had 250 hostages. If we now surrender in this war for 250 hostages, the next time there will be 2,000 hostages. They will concentrate all their forces on an Israeli cruise ship, on an old age home, on kindergartens, and they will only kidnap Israelis. Sure, there is a globalist elite, which is very spoiled and wants to partake, understandably, in the Western style of living. But we are in the Middle East. and we would have to learn that in order to be internally Athens in the Middle East,

you have to also be Sparta. So those who can't take the fire, Israel is not a jail, they can go live somewhere more safe. But if we want to preserve Zionism, for which my father, by the way, lost his hand in the war of independence, for which all Israeli families know someone who's lost their lives, we should be ready to protect ourselves or else. We would be at the hands of a genocidal regime that is overtaking the Middle East. The West has an autoimmune deficiency. It is letting wild anti-Semitic ideologies penetrate the West in the name of tolerance.

And this is the corollary in the Middle East, giving up because we care so much about the hostages, and I do too, risking that we would have many more hostages. saying is basically we should save these hostages because we can't stand it now, even if next we'll have 3,000 hostages. So excuse me, these are not just anonymous people. Sacrificing 3,000 people in the future for 200 now is not a moral calculus that I'm willing to sign on. Thank you, Gadda. You're listening to our debate today. Be it resolved, Israel must agree to a hostage deal. Let's move to closing statements, gentlemen. Barack, we're going to have you up first. What's the key point or argument that you want to leave our audience with as we conclude this debate?

The main point is that reaching a deal to conclude the war is not a sign of weakness to the contrary. It's a sign of strength. The idea that, well, if I release these prisoners now, or if I give up on the Philadelphia corridor, this is the end of the world. We are helpless. 3,000 people will be kidnapped in the future. Oh, the sky will fall on us if we do this. This is a sign of weakness. A sign of strength is realizing that Hamas has been defeated. Hamas does not exist anymore in Gaza.

Hamas has been defeated. Of course, I do not argue and no one argues that Israel should just declare that it won the war and get out of Gaza. What is suggested is to strike a deal that will include bringing into the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Authority, without Hamas controlling the area, reaching a deal regarding the hostages, trying to make sure that we have security arrangement there that will lower substantially the risk of a future October 7th. Of course, we are not sure that it will be successful.

We are not sure that no additional war will be needed. But in order to be ready for the next war, in order to make sure that we win the next war just as well, and we avoid October 7, we must be strong. And in order to be strong, we must reach an agreement that will include willingness by the Israelis to accept the idea that there is a Palestinian people, that there are Palestinians who are not Hamas,

who are willing to live next to the state of Israel. And we need this international coalition. We need this internal solidarity among our society. And if we take the position of just giving up on the hostages, we risk the future of the state of Israel. This will be a sign that we are too weak to reach an agreement. Thank you, Barack. Walgadi, we're going to give you the last word in today's debate. What's the basic concept,

the underlying idea that you want to leave our audience with after this debate? Well, I'm very glad for Barack's closing statement because I wish I could agree. He said that reaching an agreement is a sign of strength and not of weakness. I'm also glad he said we have defeated Hamas. I thought, Barack, you said it's impossible to do. So I think it's possible to do we just haven't done it yet. But what is striking about this is that in our society, reaching a compromise is a sign of strength. But this is not how Sinwa sees this. We are like many other Westerners imagining the other in our own image.

For him, winning this war is surviving. If he comes out of the tunnels and makes the V sign like Churchill, he would be Saladin for the whole of the Muslim world for a thousand years to come. This is very dangerous. So my concluding advice is, let's be more serious about listening to them. Their ideology is something they take serious. If we study their theology, losing lives is nothing because lives lost are just martyrs who will be rewarded in heaven. Buildings collapsed is nothing to pay as a price because reconstruction money will come and there would be employment in Gaza. The only coin in which they will understand defeat is if we decisively win the war and they pay a price that they understand.

And that price can only be achieved if Israel achieves full military control of the Gaza Strip in the exact same way that the Allies did at the end of World War II. Or else we will will be facing a whole Western world, will not think that compromise is a sign of strength. It will think that Iran's tactics are working and should be continued. The existence of Israel is at stake. And I agree with Barack that Israel has a responsibility for the lives of the hostages. But the existence of the state of Israel and the prevention of a second Holocaust is a stronger imperative. That does not mean that we should give up on the hostages. We should put as much pressure

on Hamas as we can in order to take them back. But a compromise, which will, in my opinion, endanger their lives even further, is not an option for Israel. Thank you, Gadda. And thank you, Barack, for a terrific debate. This is an emotional, fraught, high-stakes issue, if there ever was one. you both brought civility, substance, and your extensive knowledge of what's happening on the ground to this important conversation. So on behalf of the Monk Debates community, thank you so much for coming on the program today. Thank you for having us. Thank you for having us. Well, that wraps up today's debate.

I want to thank our participants, Barack and Gaddi, for taking part in a terrific conversation. They've certainly given us a lot to think about. Just a friendly reminder that you can vote on who you think won this debate. Go to our website right now, triplew monkdebates.com, become a free member, and cast your vote on this important debate. If you have feedback or reflections on today's debate, please send us an email to podcast at monkdebates.com.

Thank you for lending your time and attention to our efforts to bring back the art of public debate. One conversation at a time. I'm your host and moderator, Rudyard Griffith. The Monk Debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk charitable foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us,

feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.