From the day I supported here and on other platforms with warmth and enthusiasm every prisoner deal, I received many responses, from both directions.
It must be said that the backlash, to my delight, is very few. Much less than I thought it would be. But there were nonetheless, and some of them from people I admire.
Since I avoid confrontations and pointless arguments, I expropriate my small space here and reply to them.
As far as I'm concerned, the argument is not about the "arguments" against the deal – the question of price, the question of state policy vis-à-vis terrorism, kidnappings, the question of harming the momentum of the fighting. These are very important questions, but they are irrelevant. The "right to stand" of the arguing public is relevant. The public has the right to express its opinion in any field. It is common for us that the public expresses its opinion even on issues it does not understand, that is, all issues.
The public does not have professional knowledge in most areas, but the public is intelligent, and even if it is not wise, it has the wisdom of the masses and its opinion is legitimate and good to be heard. In this context, we have even made a far-reaching decision to give power to the masses, who, as stated, an absolute majority understand nothing about anything, to decide which government will run life and which election platform will be adopted (remember there used to be such a thing?), but this determination is not absolute.
We don't consult with the public on matters of the basket of medicines, we don't hear its opinion on the defense budget and we don't consult it on intelligence issues, and for some reason we live at peace with this fact and claim neither transparency nor the public's right to know nor the rule of the people.
The question of the abductees in Gaza is a matter of this kind.
When the masses, myself included, chat about the matter and raise arguments for and against their release, I find it childish and ridiculous. The public has no ability to form any serious opinion on the subject. All the questions involved are super-professional and can sometimes depend on specific data of a specific prisoner being released, and no one but specific people in the Shin Bet understands anything about it.
Just as I have suspected for years the far left of holding its views solely for the sake of being considered enlightened, so I find myself these days suspecting some of my friends of insisting solely for the sake of insistence.
We are talking about all kinds of intellectual and emotional tendencies that stem from a worldview.
Do you think? Do you think this is relevant to a question as cardinal as the immediate and daily fate of Israeli brothers held captive by Hamas? That's one claim.
The other argument is that the fact that most of the counter-arguments come from the right may indicate consistency in political and political thinking, but it could also be something else. It can simply rely on a political position and the inability to extricate itself from it.
I don't blame anyone for arguing against releasing prisoners simply because of political affiliation – actually, I am.
Just as I have suspected for years the far left of holding its views solely for the sake of being considered enlightened, so I find myself these days suspecting some of my friends of insisting solely for the sake of insistence.
Either way, I have a ready-made answer for them: You raise interesting questions. We will discuss them after all the prisoners return safely.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us