Born into an aristocratic Scottish family in 1751, Lord George Gordon was elected to Parliament in 1774, where he developed a reputation for eccentricity, political unreliability, and staunch support for granting the American colonies their independence. His political career came to an end in 1780, when he led protests against a bill extending limited civil rights to Catholics, which deteriorated into destructive riots. Gordon was arrested for treason and spent nine months in the Tower of London before being acquitted on grounds of insanity. During his imprisonment, his story grows more interesting still, as Mia Amran writes:

There is no known reason that Lord George Gordon decided, in these nine months of uncertainty, that Judaism was the path for him. . . . We do know that Gordon exchanged some letters with other Jews during those months, seeking to learn more about the religion. He also started [studying] Hebrew and petitioned the London Jewish community for political and financial support. Some actually say that his conversion was done purely out of greed. His main electorate had until now been the working class, and he possibly hoped to raise funds within the Jewish community to help secure a more affluent borough in the next elections.

Either way, by the end of his nine-month trial, he had written to Rabbi Tevele Schiff of Duke Street Synagogue, the chief rabbi of London, asking to be accepted as a Jew. He was declined. Rabbi Schiff was unclear about Gordon’s motives and turned the eccentric former MP away. But this didn’t deter Gordon. He instead traveled north to Birmingham, where another large Jewish community resided. After donating 100 pounds—a significant amount of money in those days, to the Singer’s Hill synagogue—he was given the honor of reading a mishe-beirakh (benediction) in synagogue, and Birmingham’s Rabbi Jacob agreed to convert him.

Gordon underwent circumcision, studied Torah, started praying daily, grew a beard, donned a kippah, and started keeping the laws of Shabbat and kashrut. Once an accepted member of the Jewish community, he returned to London where he attended synagogue services and again brought community acceptance with some generous financial contributions.

Gordon lived the rest of his life—which was no less colorful—as a devout Jew, using the name Yisrael Ben Avraham Avinu. He died of typhus in the Newgate Prison in 1793.

Even if the agreement with Hamas to secure the release of some, and possibly all, of the remaining hostages—and the bodies of those no longer alive—is a prudent decision for Israel, it comes at a very high price: potentially leaving Hamas in control of Gaza and the release of vast numbers of Palestinian prisoners, many with blood on their hands. Nadav Shragai reminds us of the history of such agreements:

We cannot forget that the terrorists released in the Jibril deal during the summer of 1985 became the backbone of the first intifada, resulting in the murder of 165 Israelis. Approximately half of the terrorists released following the Oslo Accords joined Palestinian terror groups, with many participating in the second intifada that claimed 1,178 Israeli lives. Those freed in [exchange for Gilad Shalit in 2011] constructed Gaza, the world’s largest terror city, and brought about the October 7 massacre. We must ask ourselves: where will those released in the 2025 hostage deal lead us?

Taking these painful concessions into account Michael Oren argues that they might nonetheless be necessary:

From day one—October 7, 2023—Israel’s twin goals in Gaza were fundamentally irreconcilable. Israel could not, as its leaders pledged, simultaneously destroy Hamas and secure all of the hostages’ release. The terrorists who regarded the hostages as the key to their survival would hardly give them up for less than an Israeli commitment to end—and therefore lose—the war. Israelis, for their part, were torn between those who felt that they could not send their children to the army so long as hostages remained in captivity and those who held that, if Hamas wins, Israel will not have an army at all.

While 33 hostages will be released in the first stage, dozens—alive and dead—will remain in Gaza, prolonging their families’ suffering. The relatives of those killed by the Palestinian terrorists now going free will also be shattered. So, too, will the Israelis who still see soldiers dying in Gaza almost daily while Hamas rocket fire continues. What were all of Israel’s sacrifices for, they will ask. . . .

Perhaps this outcome was unavoidable from the beginning. Perhaps the deal is the only way of reconciling Israel’s mutually exclusive goals of annihilating Hamas and repatriating the hostages. Perhaps, despite Israel’s subsequent military triumph, this is the price for the failures of October 7.