We could reduce some of the tension in our nation if we would all internalize the difference between a dispute and a dilemma. They are not the same thing.
A dispute occurs when two or more people or groups disagree about an issue, where each side has a clear and definitive opinion about what is right and wrong, and what should be done about it. Since these clear and definitive opinions conflict with each other, we have a dispute. By contrast, a dilemma is a difficult problem with no clear solution. In such a situation, one cannot be certain what should be done, yet the situation compels us to decide. In such a scenario, individuals and groups may choose different courses of action and might advocate for their decision over the alternative, but will realize that nobody really knows what is the best course of action.
We Israelis and Jews tend to greatly exacerbate the controversies that divide us because we treat dilemmas as if they were disputes. The most current and pressing example of this disturbing tendency is the argument over the hostage deal we signed with Hamas.
I don’t think there is a Jew in the world that hasn’t been deeply moved by the scenes of the hostages being reunited with their families (this differentiates us dramatically from our enemies; more on that later in this post), but we differ strongly on the wisdom of entering into the deal itself.
On one side are a large group of hostage families, their supporters in the political opposition, and various individuals writing opinion pieces on websites and social media. This group has declared the implementation of the deal a victory for Israel and has bemoaned the fact that we didn’t agree to it much earlier. According to this viewpoint, Israel is morally obligated to secure the release of every single hostage, by paying virtually any price necessary to do so. Hence, our acceptance of the deal is a sign of the moral strength and strong solidarity of Israeli society, which values the lives of our brothers and sisters more than anything.
For example, see this blog post – the author, a retired IDF major general who was in Nahal Oz (where his son lives) on October 7, states conclusively that Israel resisted agreeing to the deal earlier only because there were “too many politicians in our government [who] prioritized other considerations above the lives of [the hostages].” He believes that they agreed to it now only because of pressure from President Trump and his envoy Steve Witkoff, whom he congratulates for this pressure.
This past week, we heard an even more extreme formulation of the pro-deal viewpoint from Eli Albag, father of released hostage Liri Albag, who said at a press conference that he “despises” those who opposed the deal that freed his daughter, and promised that the nation would “settle accounts” with them for their opposition (it sounds even harsher in the original Hebrew).
Countering these strong accusations, we have another group (including other hostage families) who – equally strongly – oppose the deal. These include politicians such as former minister Itamar Ben Gvir, who resigned from the government and pulled his party out of the coalition in protest of the government’s agreement to release hundreds of terrorist murderers, which he terms a “capitulation” to Hamas. Or consider this piece by political commentator Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, who argues that the deal, for which he asserts that we will most surely “pay in murdered Jews” in the future is not a “sanctification of life” but rather a “desecration of life”. Pruzansky declares this deal nothing other than a “craven surrender to terror”.
The truth is, both sides make compelling points that are quite difficult to oppose. They are both clearly right – which is precisely what makes this a dilemma. The problem with many of those arguing most vociferously on both sides is that (perhaps in the misguided belief that it will help their cause) they refuse to acknowledge this complexity. They treat the matter as a dispute, not as the dilemma it is.
A better approach would exhibit humility, not decisiveness. The fact of the matter is that nobody outside of the inner circles of the army and cabinet has access to the information necessary to weigh the risks and benefits of the various options, and very few of us have the expertise to perform that evaluation even if we did. That doesn’t mean our leaders made the right decision, and it certainly doesn’t mean we ought not to have opinions. But it does mean we must be much less emphatic about those opinions. Both sides should recognize that we’re facing a dilemma with no clear solution, which by definition means that the other side might be right.
It isn’t necessary to speak this way; there are other voices to be emulated. For example, consider this recent opinion piece by my friend Rabbi Moshe Taragin, who urges us to hold the conflicting emotions of joy and hope with fear and dread at the same time, and this (Hebrew language ) Facebook post by actor and bereaved father Hagay Lober, who responds respectfully but forcefully to Eli Albag’s “the nation will settle accounts” statement. He reminds Albag that his son (who he is certain would have opposed the deal) died trying to save the hostages, including Liri Albag. He declares that he was filled with joy seeing Albag reunited with his child – a privilege that he, Lober, will never experience, and demands simply that Albag not use words like “despise” or threaten to “settle accounts” with those who are worried that the concessions we made to save Liri will endanger their own children.
Because this is a dilemma, not a dispute, there are also many aspects of the situation that we should all be able to agree about. If we recognize these areas of common ground, the tension between us will be diffused, and we might even be able to make better decisions going forward. Here are some suggestions of potential points of agreement:
- The safety and freedom of our hostages must be a top national priority. We must go to great lengths to save them, even at the risk of losing other people’s lives. Those who oppose the deal, like Rabbi Pruzansky, argue that instead of concessions to Hamas, we should try to save the hostages through greater military action, which would also come at the inevitable cost of other lives (Pruzansky didn’t explain why in his mind that type of sacrifice is not a “desecration of life”.) Israel’s willingness to endanger the lives of our soldiers and civilians to save our brothers and sisters – even as we disagree about the best way to do that – is a sign of the great moral strength and deep solidarity of the Jewish people, which stands in contrast to our enemies’ society of evil murderers. Those who oppose the deal should acknowledge this as much as those who support it.
- The release of terrorist murderers is a travesty of justice, a national tragedy for the Jewish people, and a great danger against which we will need to be vigilant for many years to come. We have paid a very, very high price for the release of these hostages. Those who support the deal should acknowledge this as much as those who oppose it.
- Pathetic PR stunts by Hamas notwithstanding, Israel has definitely and unequivocally won this war – we have decimated Hamas (and Hezbollah as well, and have also even done significant damage to Iran.) At the same time, though, our enemies have also definitely not been destroyed; we will likely need to fight them again in the future. Both of these things are true, and they don’t contradict each other.
- This is complicated, and none of us have all the answers.
If we can agree on all the above points – and I really think we should all be able to – then we can express different positions on what we should do, and can debate those points while realizing that none of us really knows what’s right. That could help us preserve our precious newly-rediscovered unity as we continue to face the ongoing challenges of the war. It’s a dilemma, not a dispute.
