To more effectively fight terrorism, free nations must be strictly uncompromising with terrorists who make demands with hostages. Yet Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, capitulated to terrorist demands to release two terrorists imprisoned in Israel’s jail. This was supposed to be in exchange for two dead Israeli "captives". The fact they were dead makes Olmert’s capitulation even more pathetic.
For various reasons, it is wrong to negotiate with terrorists after they’ve taken hostages. First, it shows terrorists that taking hostages works. Terrorists then have an incentive after the first appeasement by a free nation to continue taking hostages in the future. Next, meeting terrorist demands, in this case releasing convicted terrorists, involves a government’s contradiction of the requirements of Justice.
Justice demands that imprisoned terrorists serve the entirety of their sentence. Their imprisonment not only punishes them for their past murders of innocent people but also prevents them from murdering more people in the future. When Olmert released those prisoners he violated Justice….and did so for two dead corpses. Releasing murderers from their prison sentence so they can murder again is seriously wrong, even if the hostages were alive.
When a free nation gives-in to terrorist demands their unethical decision involves an “end justifies means” attitude. I remind readers who see nothing wrong with that, that Hitler and all the “butchers” of history took the same policy: any atrocity is permissible for a “higher good”. This policy is how tyranny duplicates itself and how terrorists compromise free nation’s leaders.
Accused of corruption, Olmert has recently said in public that people (legally) tried to remove him from his position "when the ends sanctified all the means" (from AP writer Mark Lavie’s article, “Israeli PM to resign, won’t run in party primary”, dated July 30th 2008).
In the above “hostage” case, Olmert saw an objective: release of dead Israelis (sometimes of live hostages). Yet, Olmert saw nothing wrong with releasing the murderous prisoners as a corrupt “means” to that goal. The corruption of such a “means” not only enables the freed terrorists to murder more civilians but also enables terrorists to add released prisoners to their terror network. Consequently, this network becomes better able to institute the global Islamic-dictatorship Islamofacists want.
If serving such an evil cause can save hostages, it is not moral to save those hostages. Saving hostages’ lives is morally right only—and I mean “only”—when it does not compromise our responsibility to uphold Justice, maintain the free-world and safeguard future victims' lives. However, once these last three items have to be compromised as the “price” for freeing hostages, we no longer have moral justification.
In actuality, principles justify means (or show them to be wrong). Then, a just means justifies ends. In the above hostage case, the principle that prisoners must serve their entire sentence makes prematurely releasing them wrong. Compromise with terrorists is then the unjust means to the "end" of releasing hostages. World leaders must learn from this and consistently reject "ends justifies means" approaches.
A president must 1) be tough enough to reject hostages' families’ cries to meet terrorist demands and 2) be able to handle public criticism if terrorists murder the hostages. If hostages are murdered, then the moral fault for that lies solely with the terrorists. We can not be morally blameworthy for something which a rational morality tells us not to compromise principles for.
In another sense, it is not surprising that Olmert admitted to an "end justifies means" attitude---after all Olmert was not going to run in his country’s leadership elections because of allegations of corruption. Though Olmert did not admit to corrupt acts during his tenure as Prime Minister, a man who adopts a corruption-creating policy of “ends justifies means” is apt to be corrupt in his political endeavors.
In the case of the “prisoner-corpses” swap, Olmert overlooks the better way to deal with terrorists. First, if I were Israel’s leader, I would tell the terrorists “give up our hostages or suffer the consequences”. If the terrorists then murder the hostages, I would publicly execute the prisoners that the terrorists want released. As an American, I would perform this execution as a multiple hanging in the frontier tradition of the American West. Otherwise, the ideal solution is to send a covert hostage-rescue team to resolve the hostage situation.
Next, I would do what Israel did during the bombing of the Munich Olympics: create a crack team of elite Israeli soldiers who can covertly kill terrorists in retaliation for the murder of our Israeli hostages. If the particular terrorists who murdered our Israeli hostages turn out to be elusive, I’d be content with killing other members of their group. I would continue this policy consistently in all hostage-type situations until the terrorists realize they can not manipulate our compassion for hostages’ lives.
If all nations started adopting this approach for the long-term without exception, the terrorists will no longer take hostages because they would then realize it’s futility: they still would not get what they want.
A new Israeli leader must place principle over expediency in the war on terror.
