In movies, one can often complete two mutually-exclusive tasks; in real life, sometimes not.
One of the beauties of movies and TV is that you can do whatever you want. A character got killed off? No problem, we’ll bring him back with some crazy story about his twin brother really having been killed. James Bond more than once was given a choice to save himself or somebody else. Being James Bond, he obviously saved both. James Kirk could do the same, and we just took it for granted that he could save himself and the universe before the next commercial break.
In what we consider “real life”, oftentimes there are dramatic choices that do not allow for a perfectly happy ending. When Winston Churchill realized the enormous value of the Enigma decoding work at Bletchley Park, he understood that its secrecy had to be protected at all cost. The British essentially adopted two rules. Where they could make the Germans believe that the British received their intelligence from another source, they would act on the information provided by “Station X”. For example, they would routinely send a plane to a certain location so that the Germans would conclude that whatever happened next in that sector was due to the pictures taken by the plane. What happened when they could not produce a plane or destroyer in time? Churchill would let the Germans or Italians do what they planned, which often led to Allied deaths. Churchill accepted the death of sailors and soldiers with the belief that protecting his “goose that lays the golden eggs” would save far more lives if kept secret. This arrangement also applied to the pugnacious prime minister himself. When word reached him that there was a plan to shoot down a plane on which he was traveling, the plane suddenly had engine difficulties on the ground that prevented its departure. His bodyguard pulled a part out of the engine so that a report could be made and heard by the Germans that the plane was inoperable.
Many people of late have adopted a mantra. Whether it be President Trump’s point-man for the Middle East or members of the Knesset, they all seem to be saying the same thing: “We will get all of the hostages home and then we will destroy Hamas.” What happens if you have to choose between these menu items and cannot have them both? As Hamas reduces its supply of live hostages, it will stall and raise the price higher and higher. If the sole goal of the nation is to get its kidnapped people home, then the leadership will agree to whatever price is asked. On the other hand, if there is a serious determination to destroy Hamas and its hold on Gaza, then both time and resources might require actions that could potentially risk the lives of Israelis still in Gaza. In one of the last Bond installments, 007 could save the kidnapped woman and still get out of the building just as it is blowing up. What if one cannot get all of the hostages out and still destroy Hamas? Those who declaim “get all hostages home and destroy Hamas” never seem to appreciate that they may be making contradictory statements in a single sentence.
A friend of mine who fought the full sixteen months in Gaza told me that it is hard to make a transition to civilian life as nobody knows when and if they are going to be called up again. Many Israeli politicians seem to take it for granted that after some pause, the IDF will continue its destruction of Gaza from where it left off. That may sound good in front of a TV camera, but beyond the standing army are reservists who are not human yo-yos. Many have families that have had a rough go with daddy not home or maybe their startup is about to go under due to a lack of attention and progress. I am not convinced that it will be all that easy to restart the war. Sure, the planes can bomb targets and the army can go back into the places it has left. But to get the reservists back into uniform and fight as if there had been no break, I don’t know how easy such a task is. And I am not in any way questioning patriotism. I am simply pointing out that people who have had an opportunity to go home and restart their lives are not going to be hankering to go off to war for another few months.
And beyond the questions of hostages versus Hamas and how easy it would be to restart the war, there is another very difficult question. Anyone who has witnessed the demented hostage transfer ceremonies that include the pro-Hamas Red Cross “signing for” the hostages will understand that the problem does not end with Hamas. The people at these events are thrilled to a point of ecstasy at the sight of coffins of little Jewish children or have to be restrained from approaching the terrified Israelis who just want to go home. Fine, get rid of Hamas. You still have say 1.5 million people who think exactly like them. So what government are you going to build? Israel has said no to Hamas and the deceitful Palestinian Authority (PA). So who’s it going to be? The seven people in Gaza who are not demonic lunatics barking at the moon? Israel, if it does not follow Trump’s plan in encouraging a Gazan egress, will have a heck of a time finding people to form a ruling junta that is not hellbent on destroying Israel and killing Jews. Okay, it won’t be called Hamas; they will call it Hummus.
Leadership demands making painful decisions. Every officer and politician who has sent soldiers into harm’s way should have weighed the potential upside of the action versus the risks to those being called to duty. Israel’s fixation on the hostages may lead to a price that will endanger the other 10 million Israeli citizens. It may also make it impossible to get rid of or destroy Hamas. But let’s say that Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu really is the next James Bond and he somehow gets all of the hostages out and ends Hamas’ rule? What comes next? Another advantage of the movies is that you don’t have to deal with those kinds of questions.