Born in Austria to a Catholic mother and a Jewish father, Hans Maier—better known as Jean Améry—was captured by the Nazis in Belgium and sent to Auschwitz. After World War II, he authored influential works on his own experiences and on the Holocaust in general, which, writes Alvin Rosenfeld, “are distinguished by a rare degree of intellectual vigor and moral courage” that put him on par with Primo Levi and Elie Wiesel. He also became one of the first prominent leftists to see the dangers of the European left’s anti-Zionist turn. Rosenfeld writes:

Under the guise of anti-Zionism, “the old, wretched anti-Semitism ventures forth,” [Améry] ruefully noted. . . . At anti-Israel rallies in German cities in the 1970s, Améry heard not only fierce denunciations of Zionism as “a global plague” and “strike the Zionist dead—and make the East red,” but also repeated cries of “Death to the Jewish people.” The fact that these primitive hatreds were voiced by young men and women of the left, his own political home, infuriated Améry. He had not expected to witness such a scandalous spectacle in postwar Germany, especially coming from people he had regarded as his friends and natural allies, but “the tide has turned. Again, an old-new anti-Semitism impudently raises its disgusting head, without raising indignation.”

Knowledge of Zionism was no more a part of Améry’s formative years in Austria than was knowledge of Judaism, and yet in his later years he became a passionate defender of Israel, especially against the country’s adversaries on the left. In this respect, he stood out among German-language authors of his time, for his voice as a public supporter of the Jewish state’s right to exist found few others to match it. In fact, he was the first publicly to denounce anti-Zionism as a new form of anti-Semitism in Germany.

As he saw it, “the possibility cannot be ruled out that the systematic annihilation of large numbers of Jews could recur.” Israel, he believed, was as sure a defense against such a fearsome recurrence as any the Jews could hope to have. And yet, since its birth, Israel was the target of militant opposition by Arab countries in the Middle East and, to his horror, by many in Europe whose anti-Zionism was trumpeted as a necessary and even “virtuous” political stance.

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.