One for all? or All for one??

Which is a better country to stay? The country that would risk war, and maybe even condemnation of the world, to get one of their own citizens back? Or the country that is willing to risk the safety of all its citizens for the sake of holding on to 1 hostage, to get what they want in exchange?

For me, it's a no brainer. Of course I will choose the first country..

What is the point of asking the world to condemn the other country when all that country wants is its citizen back? One that was taken forcefully from the them? If they are really soooo concerned about the safety of their own citizens, in view of the fierce military retaliation of that first country, then why don't they just give up the hostage?? Isn't this the simplest way out?? DUH!!!

No wonder the citizens of the first country is so united, even when they were surrounded by so many that hated/despised them. Those countries around it will only 'united' when it benefits them one way or another.. No wonder US is so sure that Israel will survive in the Middle East...