One thing is always true regarding hostages. The person holding someone or something hostage has little regard for the safety or welfare of the hostage. The hostage only has value to the extent it can be used to extort payment from those who do value the hostage.
The pattern is always similar. The hostage is used to extort payment that would otherwise never be considered. If payment is not received, the hostage taker has no moral qualms about just killing the hostage. To them, the hostage is simply the means to an end. However, history teaches us that if we negotiate with hostage takers, it just encourages more people to take hostages. Sadly, sometimes the only way to stop hostage takers is to be willing to risk or even lose a hostage in the process.
Hamas is losing the war with Israel but winning the PR contest. They have a lot of people who should know better cheering on Israel for negotiating with the hostage takers, even when the demands are patently absurd. Here Israel is giving Hamas a desperately needed opportunity to regroup so they can prepare to attack again. Israel is gaining the release of fifty women and children held hostage. Hamas is gaining the return of about 150 Palestinian women and children currently held in Israeli jails. Hamas is more than willing to put innocent civilians, including children in harm’s way. They often use civilians as human shields. So, odds are the value of these “Israeli” prisoners is other than humanitarian.
To put this in perspective, in 2011 Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas Leader in Israel, was released after 23 years in Israel prisons as part of a “prisoner exchange.” It is reported that Yahya Sinwar is the number one target for Israel in Gaza today.
Ironically, it is Democrats who are screaming for negotiating with hostage takers. Perhaps they understand this better because Democrats are famous for taking hostages during negotiations with Republicans. The latest example of this was when Kevin McCarthy caved and gave Democrats what they wanted in a temporary spending bill. Democrats were willing to hold up pay, worldwide, for our military personnel in exchange for getting what they wanted. Real class. The MSM, rather than point out the obvious hostage taking, cheered on Republicans for caving to Democratic demands. This appears to happen in every negotiation with Democrats regarding spending. Democrats are willing to sacrifice things that have bi-partisan support to get increased funding for things Republicans strongly oppose. Just think about that for a minute. This is why it is nearly impossible to get any administration to cut unnecessary spending.
Each of us has seen this play out on the local level. When Democrats want to raise taxes, they always say this is necessary to prevent cuts to law enforcement, public safety, and schools. This is also hostage taking because they are cutting things with bi-partisan support in exchange for increased spending on other pet projects often out of touch with the priorities of the people they pretend to represent.
Sadly, this almost always works because Republicans routinely cave when confronted with hostages. One reason for this is that the MSM, which is increasingly left wing and overwhelmingly Democrats, NEVER even recognizes who is holding hostages and who is not.
You see this playing out right now. There is bi-partisan support for Israel, but Democrats and RINO Republicans are willing to hold this aid hostage until they can obtain more funds to waste on corruption in The Ukraine. While no one supports Russia invading Ukraine, the sad reality is that there is very little confidence that the amount of money we are spending is focused on defeating Russian. There is systemic corruption, which is to be expected because The Ukraine is famous for systemic corruption.
The MSM views any cutting of aid to The Ukraine as rewarding Russia, without even considering whether this aid is being used responsibly to achieve the goal of defeating Russia. The most irresponsible decision would be to allow Russia to gain more territory in The Ukraine as it did previously in Crimea. But it is equally irresponsible to keep sending money, used poorly, only to end up with identical results.
Winston Churchill faced a horrible dilemma shortly after being elected Prime Minister. There were British Troops, trapped in France but there were hundreds of thousands of troops trapped in Dunkirk. Churchill had to notify the commanders in France that there would be no assistance coming, despite the desperate situation, because he had to try and save the troops in Dunkirk. That had to have been a heart rendering, but necessary decision. This is like when he learned about the firebomb attack scheduled for Coventry, but he allowed that attack to proceed without even giving warning to the residents. The alleged reason he did that is that he felt he could not risk letting Germany know that Great Britain was reading its codes. I would never want to be personally confronted with this kind of decision but recognize that somethings these types of decisions are absolutely necessary.
We better learn who has the courage to do the necessary to stop hostage takers. This is always bitter and painful, but far less bitter and painful than allowing hostage takers to profit from their evil plans.
TDM