An elderly Israeli woman, who, with her husband, was taken hostage during the HAMAS Terror Invasion, is released with great fanfare. She thanks her kidnappers — which seems understandable considering her husband and many others continue to be held hostage. But after walking out of frame, she returns, shakes the hand that helped murder 1,400 innocent civilians, and wishes him “Shalom” – ‘Peace.’ Stockholm Syndrome? A play for better treatment of her husband still held hostage? A spiritual victory over hatred? Or is it impenetrable naiveté?
Join our crack team of elite anti-elitists by becoming a member or making a one-time donation right here:
https://oldsite5dev.wpenginepowered.com/register/
31 replies on “Shalom?”
Bill is absolutely correct. Progressives and muslims worship the same “god,” i.e., Satan. The main difference is that Progressives don’t realize that they also have a theology which rules their delusional and self-righteous attitudes & conduct. There’s no such thing as “atheists.” They claim to not believe in God, but God doesn’t “believe in” them. (Rom 1)
It is possible that this hostage, at the point of her release, was not aware of the actual truth on the ground in Israel. Only to hear the facts after release? I mean, what advantage would there be for these Hamas captors have to allow these hostages to know about the truth of the atrocities that Hamas committed?
Good point. Prisoners under these circumstances are generally not allowed to know what’s happening beyond what they can see and hear. Keeping them in the dark is a way to make them have less tendency to become unruly. I.E. if they know what’s going on they might do something inconveniently desperate.
Steve, I luv ya, but its not
kibitz
It’s kibutz or kibbutz Nir Oz
as in Ki-Boo-tz or Kib-Boo-tz
where the tz can be pronounced as a T for those with lazy tongues
but it’s better to pronounce the tz as tzzz
to kibitz –
Not a day goes by that I am not haunted by a fairly old Sting song – “I hope the Russians love their children, too.” It is a pretty good take on the cold war, in general, and MADD policy. He had poor things to say about both Reagan and Gorbachev, but the title tells it all. The fact Russians were as adamant as the west to see their children grow, prosper and multiply was the real reason the cold war would probably not go hot.
Then I shudder thinking of Muslims using their children as human shields and suicide bombers. I do believe a limited nuclear strike or a good old time firebombing campaign, turning the Iranian nuclear sites to dust, is our only hope in diverting full out nuclear war. Iran will use the bomb within days of building a working one. Bank on it.
I believe Russia and China will look the other way, as will the rest of the Mid East.
Remember, the Russians and Chinese love their children, too.
I would like to believe the Palestinians are redeemable, have some remaining humanity, are susceptible to recognizing the value in human life and standing down from their behavior. They don’t.
That said, we have to realize that they have nuclear weapons. If their culture doesn’t respect life on earth and seeks to die for their faith in an effort to exterminate the Jewish people, this is something that has to be remedied. The reason we haven’t had world wars up until now was because the Russians have people who don’t want oblivion as a goal. The parameters of war have changed and this is bad.
The so-called Palestinians do not have nuclear weapons. This is at least the second time I’ve seen you say something like that and it’s just not so.
I don’t know if you’re confused about the difference between Palestinians, who are Arabs, and Iranians, who are Persians and NOT Arabs, or if there’s something else going on here.
Unless you have intel that contravenes everything I’m aware of and backs up such a claim, the Iranians do not have nuclear weapons either. Yet. They’re not likely to EVER get real thermonuclear weapons but they may, if not vigorously hindered, acquire atomic weapons.
Those two are not the same thing. An atomic weapon was what was used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those weapons destroyed the city centers but did not destroy Japan. The estimate at the time was that it would take around 10,000 such atomic weapons to completely reduce Japan to the stone age. Which was what was assumed would be necessary if they refused to give up. This same thing could be accomplished today with around 100 or so modern nukes. That’s at least two orders of magnitude in difference. It’s a very important difference.
Thermonuclear weapons use an atomic weapon trigger and have many, many times the energy of an atomic weapon. An atomic weapon is a fission bomb, a thermonuclear weapon is a fusion bomb. “Nukes” technically and correctly speaking are fusion bombs.
I’m going into all this because nomenclature is important and as a Doctor it seems to me that you’d already know that. Nukes in the hands of the Palestinians is most likely never going to be a realistic threat.
The thing is, fission weapons have to be huge in order to create an energy yield that makes them worth the effort. They can be made much smaller but there’s really no point in an atomic weapon that ‘only’ destroys a few city blocks. They can also be made smaller by reducing the shielding around the fissile material. But a bomb that kills everyone around it before it even gets close to the enemy is useless. Multiple conventional explosive weapons can do the same job much cheaper and safer for everyone not in the impact area. The fission triggers of a fusion bomb are an example of ‘much smaller’.
Look at the size of the bombs we dropped on Japan in WWII. That’s the kind of bomb the Iranians are trying to build. That’s going to be damned hard or very near impossible for Iran to deliver. Back in WWII we had the element of surprise and delivered those bombs with a single bomber aircraft. The gambit was that Japan was so low on war resources they would not bother with a single aircraft probably assuming it was a reconnaissance plane.
There is no bomber that is going to take off from Iran, or anywhere else for that matter, that the Israelis are not going to shoot down well before it gets over a major city.
One of the problems with not knowing all this, and there’s more to know by quite a lot, is not understanding what is meant when speaking of these sorts of devices.
Iran may yet develop and test a fission weapon. Even then, that doesn’t mean that the world goes up in a thermonuclear holocaust immediately. It’s a very bad thing, it’s not an end-of-the-world thing of itself. It is absolutely a thing to be prevented if it can be.
Iran has not done so yet. The proof of this is that the Israelis have not yet bombed Iran down to melted rock, or at least not the locations where such an existing weapon might be located. If you see that happen you will know that Iran has a working fission weapon.
The Israelis DO have fusion weapons beyond any reasonable doubt. Iran knows that if they use a fission weapon on Israel, Israel will use fusion weaponS on Iran. Israel and Iran both know Israel would be well justified in doing so. The Iranians might have insane motivations but they’re not stupid. They know that they, not Israel, will be the ones destroyed completely. This means they know that using a fission weapon on Israel not only will not accomplish their purpose, it will make accomplishing their purpose impossible. Ever. They would be giving up their aims thereby and Iran, crazy though they may be, isn’t stupid enough to do that because it means failure of their goals.
Some people think Iran might buy atomic weapons from Pakistan or NorKor. This doesn’t matter. Same results. It’s an apocalyptic doom porn fantasy not a scenario that merits genuine intense concern.
The detonation of such a third party weapon would immediately release isotopes that can be traced back easily to the nation that manufactured the weapon and THAT nation will also pay a massive price for being involved in a fission bomb attack. This is what keeps Pakistan, NorKor or anyone else from providing atomic weapons to Iran. Not ideology, not because they’re good guys or even marginally better people. The motivation is fear.
I’m more than happy to amplify any of these points if you like. Just let me know. This is just a quick thumbnail sketch of the situation.
If you have intelligence or information to the contrary, I’d be happy to see it. I’m always open to adjusting my thinking when presented with actual facts. If you have any facts regarding the Palestinians or Iranians being in possession of actual atomic weapons trot them out and let’s examine them. I’m not open to conspiracy and conjecture or specious argument so let’s keep this on a factual basis. If you do a serious dive on the information I’ve provided above, you can find out what the facts are in great detail.
A note of caution … Anything you see or read that doesn’t distinguish between fission and fusion weapons is amateurish, slanted, biased and inaccurate. Anyone who says “Iran has nukes” is too ignorant to heed. Just because a weapon uses the forces in atoms does not make it the same as all other weapons that use the forces in atoms. Just like Uranium-238 and Hydrogen are not the same thing at all. Just like an anti-tank rocket and an ICBM are both rockets but they’re not the same sort of thing, and should not ever be lumped together. Performance capacity and capability are vital considerations and people tend to think of anything that uses atoms as being equivalent to everything else that uses atoms. That’s a mistake of ignorance.
I’m posting this because this is a very serious, very sober topic. It needs to be observed and addressed in a serious and sober manner. It’s really, really important that people get their facts straight on this stuff. Because otherwise they’ll say things that are not true and act according to those untruths.
I really hate to quibble with you, but…
I have seen “nukes” to refer to both atomic (fission) weapons and thermonuclear (fusion) weapons. (See next paragraph) I even looked it up on the internet, and it says “Nukes” can refer to either. But I think you are right that most people mean thermonuclear weapons in big scale when they say “nukes.”
But there is the term “Tactical nukes” used for very small fission bombs. To be used in a tactical, not strategic, situation, small yield is a must, which means a fission bomb.
My Dad had a business card from J.C. (James Cash) Penny, the chain store guy. It said, under his name and such …
“Just because something has been done a certain way for a long time doesn’t mean it’s ever been done the right way.”
My point about nukes vs. atomic vs. fission vs. fusion addresses the correct, military view and nomenclature not the common vernacular. The common vernacular is always fraught with inaccuracies and hyperbole. See “racist” for a good example.
I’m not up on the Russian’s sub-strategic nukes but our own predominant tactical nuclear warhead is the B61 Mod 12. It is a variable yield warhead that can be set for 300 tons (.3 kiloton) at the low end to a maximum of 50 kilotons yield on the high end. There is another variant of the B61 that can be set for a yield of up to 340 kilotons but that’s not properly a “tactical” nuke. The B61 is a two-stage radiation implosion design, which is a thermonuclear warhead. The variable yield function is accomplished by varying the amount of fusionable material available to the fission trigger of the warhead.
To my knowledge we do not have any regular nuclear warheads that solely rely on fission. Fission cannot be “dialed up or down”. It’s also a terrible waste of very expensive fissile (and heavy as sin) material so there’s really no reason for major powers to deploy a solely fission powered device. Enough fissile material to set off an atomic detonation is more than enough to get the sort of results from fusion that is desired, large or small.
We used to have fissile artillery shells and such but those went obsolete long, long ago.
That said,we do have some sub-tactical special purpose weapons, colloquially called “suitcase bombs”, but I’m not wholly familiar with the mechanism they use to generate yield. Those devices are intended for mining harbors and transportation nexus’ and other such critical targets by special forces operators. I’ve only ever seen those in inert training mockups where disassembly is vigorously discouraged.
None of which has a dang thing to do with Doc J saying that the Palestinians have nukes. They do not, Iran does not. No matter what you choose to call a ‘nuke’. Which was what I was talking about, quibbling and quibblers notwithstanding 🙂
Edit —
P.S. I really, really hope Doc Jackson doesn’t say something absurd like “If you don’t think Iran has nukes you’re fooling yourself!” Because that would be an empty, meaningless thing to say and I’m hoping for better out of him. He’s a bright guy.
Fyi and not technically relevant, my first in person interview for a Chemical Engineering job (my degree) was at the TVA uranium enrichment plant, in the late 70’s/early 80’s. I sometimes say “I nearly got a job at the a place that makes fuel for nuclear reactors and things that make a very loud boom.”
A bit early for thorium reactors, and still used in assisting making even bigger booms. But to enrich the uranium, you need to separate the isotopes. First.convert the uranium oxide into uranium hexafloride, turn it into a gas and centrifuge it. And believe me, the centrifuges they used to separate the isotopes were honking huge!
Ten foot diameter pipes. 😳
Well, the “atomic weapon” term is a misnomer. Both fission devices, which are incorrectly called atomic weapons, and fission/fusion weapons (i.e., thermonuclear devices) are nuclear weapons. They both rely upon nuclear reactions to produce their energy outputs. Both rely upon the fission (i.e., breakage of fissile nuclei) to release large amounts of energy, neutrons and fission fragments in a catastrophic, uncontrolled chain reaction, which releases orders of magnitude more energy than any atomic (or chemical) reaction (i.e., TNT). Alternatively, thermonuclear devices use that fission energy, as you stated, to initiate a fusion reaction of the nuclei of a light element like deuterium (an isotope of hydrogen) that releases orders of magnitude more energy than fission when the helium nuclei are formed.
The distinction here is chemical reactions function at the atomic scale with the rapid exchange of electrons and release of energy; whereas, nuclear reactions operate at the nucleus’ scale, which is approximately 100,000 times smaller in diameter than an atom. Hence, both fission and fusion are nuclear reactions.
So … before you start harping on one man’s correct usage of the term nuclear weapon, perhaps you should better understand the underlying physics and ensure your terminology is correct — rather than just a colloquial interpretation. Granted, your military background and training has likely led you to adopt such colloquial terminology when referring to different types of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, too many people, including yourself, use the colloquial term atomic weapon to refer to fission weapons, which are nuclear weapons, and then claim they know better when someone else uses the nuclear label. BAH!
Now, regarding Keith’s claims about who in that region has nuclear weapons … uh … no comment.
Lol, Bill … You didn’t say that, David P said that. Just in case Dave sees this comment after you’ve fixed the attribution — The author line shows “Bill Whittle” at 16:44 on 29 Oct.
Back to Bill … Your work on the site is making it very difficult to carry on a conversation. I’ll wait until it looks like you’re done doing whatever it is you’re doing before I continue to comment on this topic.
Do what you have to do. Now that you’ve told us about the site being under construction and site improvements that are pending — I’m not at all concerned about how long that takes you. It’s good of you to let us know when you do that so that we peons out here in the wild don’t think it’s a problem with our browser, or device, or internet, or that the site has been hijacked or whatever.
I’ll check back later/tomorrow to see how things are going. As you were.
I was thinking of either Iranian, Russian, or black market nuclear “dirty bombs”. Nothing about this makes sense from a tactical point of view. But, as ACTS reminds me, these Hamas terrorists seem to not have sensible strategy as a goal and they are not like us.
Never forget Who is in charge and don’t let those things trouble you. I’m not saying ignore them, I’m saying that they are beyond any effect you can have on them. It’s human nature to worry but I try not to worry about things I cannot do anything about. Because those things are in other Hands.
I do not think that physics based weaponry is available to those people because Saudi Arabia does not have them either. Unlike Iran, the so-called Palestinians, and all the rest of the actors in that region — If those things were available the nation that could best afford them, and would procure them, is Saudi Arabia.
For Saudi Arabia and unlike Iran, having nuclear weapons that no one knows about is not a deterrence. Iran doesn’t care about deterrence but Saudi Arabia absolutely does. If the Saudis had such weapons the first thing they would do is put Iran on notice that an attack by Iran would be answered with a devastating response. Like it or not, deterrence works. The proof is that you and I are still alive to comment on Bill’s website.
Iran has not yet developed an actual, usable weapon. Yet. The way you can be sure of that is that Israel has not bombed any Iranian facilities down to bedrock. If Israel thought Iran could destroy Tel Aviv or a smaller city in a single blow there would be no restraining them from attacking Iran. They would have to do that for their own survival and they wouldn’t give a flying rat’s ass what the rest of the world thinks about them doing that. Neither would we, in their shoes, BTW.
If you see that happen then you can be certain Iran has an Islamic Bomb or the immediate capacity to create one. That’s the ‘tell’.
The Russians are not going to provide nuclear weapons to terrorists. That would incontrovertibly be political, economic and military suicide for Russia and Russia has more than enough problems as things stand without that. This is not me “mirroring” as Bill talks about. This is just a fact. It’s impossible to detonate a nuclear device without the world soon learning where it came from. No matter who uses it. The Russians are not honest or compassionately responsible and I would never accuse them of being so. They know what would happen and their motivation is fear of consequences not concern for humanity.
The black market is always a possibility. It’s not inconceivable that a Russian weapon would be stolen and sold illicitly. It’s not at all likely but it’s not impossible either. The black market is not a State Actor, if this were to happen the number and size of the weapons would be very, very limited. Probably to a single, low yield weapon.
That being the case, yes a nuclear device could be used. Again, not at all likely but also not completely impossible. This is why it’s vital to see these things with a clear head and understand the actual threat. Just because someone sets off a bomb doesn’t mean the world will automatically be plunged into a terminal nuclear holocaust. It would be an atrocity and a tragedy but not a trigger for Armageddon.
As far as “they are not like us” goes …
I know I keep hammering on that but I also know that it’s a thing that cannot be hammered too much. The ‘normal’ way for human beings to address problems is to view them from their own frame of reference. It’s a trick that takes practice not to do. It’s easier for me than most because I have life experiences that have hammered that particular lesson home. I still catch myself doing that, rarely but it happens.
Quite a few years back my larger family was on vacation at a family ‘cabin’ (in name only) by a lake in Northern Minnesota. My younger son, who at that time was a U.S. Navy 03, my elder son and various nieces and nephews and myself were all sitting around a robust campfire talking. My younger son was just back from a deployment with the 5th Fleet at Manama, Bahrain. The subject of radical Islamic terrorism came up …
One of my nieces, a cute, bright young woman who works in the nursing profession asked the question “Why do those people hate me? What have I ever done to them?”
Both my son and I tried to explain the situation to her, I’m not sure either of us got the idea across.
Because if you look at how she framed the questions, she was internalizing the situation and trying to understand it from her frame of reference. We could not answer the exact questions she asked. There is no reason in her experience that anyone should hate her enough to wish her dead and act on that wish. The question is unanswerable. She had never done anything to them for them to hate her so. That question was also unanswerable.
We tried to explain to her how alien the thinking and resultant acts of those people are. She could not understand how that could be because she had no lived experience with that sort of thing. She’d never been more than a few hundred miles from her home in lily-white, Christian Conservative, reasonably compassionate, friendly, helpful, caring rural Minnesota. She just had no way to comprehend what we were trying to tell her. Even her choice of profession as a nurse fit that environment perfectly.
Both my son, who she respects greatly, and myself who she also has a lot of respect for, tried to transfer knowledge we had gained in our own lived experience to her. This is seldom a fruitful effort with most people because while they may ‘understand’ intellectually what they’re being told, they do not actually grasp the situation because to them it is nonsensical. They can’t get past the nonsensical thing.
Making matters even worse, the situation IS nonsensical. Try as I might these many years I cannot come up with a good reason why those people act as they do. Even with my broader frame of reference it still doesn’t make any sense. All I can do along those lines is accept the facts as they are. The why of that they are that way remains a mystery to me.
They are what they are because that’s what they are. Their thinking and actions are not subject to what I would consider responsible reasoning and sound logic. They act contrary to their own wellbeing. They live in squalor and filth rather than accept a better life. A better life the world is willing to hand them on a silver platter if they’d just give up their murderous ways. They lie about a “Palestinian State” when their leaders are openly on record saying they don’t want that and will turn the land over to Jordan and/or Syria the minute they get control. They lie about their demands and when 95%+ pf those demands were met they turned the offer down cold. Because it’s not about their demands, if they accept any sort of agreement they have to stop killing Jews and they will do anything to prevent that from happening. They’d rather kill Jews, or us, than raise their children in peace and prosperity. They’ll even set their own children up to die as propaganda pawns, FFS. What kind of insane being does things like that? Their actions are nonsensical and unfathomable. What they are is so alien to me that they might as well be another species from another planet.
Unlike my niece who would try to persuade them that they shouldn’t hate her and want to kill her — I have reluctantly come to accept that they only thing those people will respect is force. Massive, overwhelming, devastating force. The sooner that force is applied, the better for them and us. Because that’s the only thing that will get them to give up on their bloody, murderous ways.
Whether they realize it or not, whether they admit it to themselves or not — They have placed themselves on the road to their own annihilation. Their very religious beliefs allow them to lie. The very worst of those lies are the ones they tell themselves.
There is no Palestinian nationality. There never has been and there is no reason, let alone a good reason, why there should be. There is no cause for them to demand a State of their own. There is no logic nor humanity in trying to kill all the Jews in Israel and refusing to accept the existence of the Jewish State. Their own Arabic cousins do not want them. They have intentionally chosen to become a pariah people because they want a grievance that excuses their murderous ways. These and all their other stated motivations are lies and nothing but an excuse for bloody murder of both Jews and Arabs alike. Force is the main tool in their toolbox and the only thing they respect.
Even if we completely defeat them by force, that force must be augmented with vigilance because if they see an opportunity to use force themselves, no matter how futile, they will take it.
Umm, hey ACTS – how did you get your name to show up as Bill Whittle? Are you BETA testing?
Ok, this is getting twisted…..
We are obviously in a Twilight Zone episode. It can only mean that Bill scored an interview with Billy Mumy for his new show!!
I don’t get what you mean by “twisted”. If there’s any twisting going on here it’s not being done by me. There are other people who have had their attributions altered to ‘Bill Whittle’ on this page too. It’s an error that had to happen in the process of upgrading the site last Sunday.
“Ron”, light hearted comment by me on Bill’ name being attributed to other posters. That’s all . Should have responded in the root comment section, instead to directly to you. sorry bout that
No, I’m not beta testing. I didn’t see this until just now because it’s not showing up in my comment replies either. I would never, ever use Bill Whittle’s name in place of my own for any reason.
I have no idea why the site is putting Bill in as author to some of these comments. It’s not just me either. There are others that happened to too.
It probably has something to do with a SNAFU during the site upgrade that happened on Sunday last. Not being conversant with the software and proceedures being applied, I don’t know what that SNAFU might be but it’s certainly some sort of error result.
Another possible reason may be she’s a good, solid follower of God, who said “Love your enemy.” It takes strong faith to do that when treated as she and others were. Jesus was treated badly, and is a perfect example of how humans should respond to treatment. I’m proud of her IF that is what is behind her actions. I could never do that. My US Marine training would demand other responses, more ‘ever lasting,’ may God forgive me.
How does one of the special forces taglines go? “.. its our job to arrange the meeting.”
Yeah, I’m a Jarhead too and “Love your enemies” is one of the very hardest commands to adhere to. I don’t really hate them either. All I feel when I kill is recoil.
The title of this made me think of an episode of All in the Family called Archie is Branded. From IMDB
As the Jewish vigilante, who is named Paul, (played by Gregory Sierra, later Det Chano on Barney Miller) leaves he tells Archie “Shalom”. Archie says you said that when you came in you use the same word for Hello and Goodbye, Mike chimes in, It means “Peace”.
Paul leaves, Archie closes the door and moments later there is an explosion. Archie opens the door and looks out and says – Oh my god, it’s Paul, they blew him up in his car.
Remember folks, when Hamas or the squad (BIRM) calls for a cease fire, they mean they want Israel to cease firing.
I will believe that this woman is trying to reach whatever dust particle of humanity might be left in these (I was going to type people, but I can’t) creatures. I don’t believe that they have any left.
I said below to Karl that for me this falls in the “judge not that ye be not judged” category because I don’t want to hold others to standards I’m not willing to meet myself.
I was talking about this Israeli woman. Not the Palestinians.
I’m happy to be held to the standards I hold them to. I’m not a murdering animal and they should not be murderous animals either. I do not behead babies and rape children. I do not shoot unarmed people presenting no threat to anyone in cold blood. I do not hide behind women and children so I can use them for a shield to protect me while I commit those atrocities or from the natural consequences of having committed them.
So I DO judge them and have every right to, with no hypocrisy involved whatsoever.
I do not know what motivated this elderly Israeli woman to an act that might be taken as good, magnanimous and forgiving — or not. I do know all too well the evil that motivates the hands she’s shaking.
I am going to side a little more with Scott than Bill, although either could be more correct in this case. Mostly this might be my naivete but I am hoping she did what she did, and the work her husband and she was doing, was more in the line of a missionary than progressive virtue signaling. Someone might create a charity and raise money to pay for people to transport others to show virtue. I am less sure they would transport the people themselves. Most of the Progressives are big on doing something that looks good but less on actually doing something.
I agree, there are good hearted people who mean well and act accordingly. Even if some might see their actions as misplaced or mistaken their motivations are good.
Often the line dividing virtue signalling and actual virtue is the commitment a person exhibits. The Left goes on and on about saving the planet while promoting electric cars that do nothing towards that end and are more likely harmful than helpful. They decry the squalid conditions of the poor but not one of them will sell his iPhone and give the money to a shelter or food bank. Etc. The hypocrisy of the Left is usually more than obvious.
We have to be careful with this sort of thing. Motivations can be difficult to interpret. Not every single thing boils down to some sort of political motivation. Just as when you’re a hammer every problem looks like a nail — When you’re a political enthusiast every problem might look like a political issue.
This falls in the “judge not that ye be not judged” category for me. I’m reluctant to hold others to a standard I would not want to be held to myself.
How about the ENTIRE scene was scripted?
Once again, Occam’s Razor for the win.
Why didn’t she choose to stay with her husband? Was she forced to go? The Hamas murderers may have said to themselves we will need these sympathizers in the future and they are helping us, so we will get the maximum news benefit from letting one of them go. Why would they care that she may have needed her medicine?!! They just slaughtered, raped, burned and beheaded babies among those dead 1400 civilians. How many Israelis were mollified or influenced by her actions, as scripted or not? We are forced to make judgements. She made herself a useful idiot for Hamas propaganda. 85 year olds can be fools, too.
I can assure you most sincerely that whether it made the news or not, that woman was thoroughly debriefed by Israeli forces. To not only learn what she consciously knew but to learn what she knew but was also unaware of.
Military/intelligence debriefings are a pretty esoteric but effective art form.
The propaganda “victory” was insignificant by comparison. That kind of drek only works on those who are predisposed to believe it anyway. It rarely sways anyone one way or the other.
No matter what her intentions might be, the only thing she could do that had any hope of helping her husband was to accept her own release. She was powerless to the highest possible degree while she was Hamas’ prisoner.
She probably didn’t even think of all that. Just like you didn’t either and there’s no reason either she or you would. I’m not criticizing you, I’m trying to point out things you would have no way of considering.
Whether she intended to or not, she choose the right course of action in accepting her own release. She may have acted stupidly in the process but it’s the end result that counts.
If I were her husband I would have insisted that she go.