While Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all venerate martyrs, the term means something very different in each religion. Malka Simkovich argues that the two books of Maccabees—considered part of the Old Testament by many Christian denominations, but excluded from the Jewish Bible—introduced the idea to Judaism. In turn, they exerted much influence on early Christian writers, who heavily emphasized martyrdom. By contrast, Simkovich writes, the rabbinic tradition tended to downplay martyrdom.

Take, for instance, the Talmud’s exegesis of the verse, “As for Your sake we are killed all the day long; we are reckoned as sheep for the slaughter” (Psalms 44:23). It first understands these words as referring to those who give their life for God, and then presents other readings:

This entire set of interpretations, which offer an alternative to the martyrdom stories—circumcision, teaching ritual slaughter in a dangerous way, and exhaustion by constant study—downplays the virtue of literal martyrdom. Nevertheless, the rabbis don’t dismiss its value altogether.

Dying for a cause was a Greek ideal, and it is thus not surprising that the Hellenistic 2Maccabees is sympathetic to this concept. . . . For the rabbis, dying for God was theoretically an admirable thing, but in practice, they wished to limit this to the occasional exceptional story, and not encourage their followers to pursue a martyr’s fate.

In short, the rabbinic ideal finds holiness in dying for one’s faith, but something even greater in living for it.

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.