This is the level counter-level game theory argument; i.e. the best way for a president to protect his children from kidnapping for ransom is to make clear in advance that he will not yield even if they are taken (and somehow force everyone to believe him, which is the murkier part).
Anyway, I imagine responses to the piece are going to be pretty tempestuous. It makes some pro-Israel assertions that aren't popular right now and uses a train of logical thought that a Facebook friend of mine described as Goebbels-ian (hopefully with full awareness of the irony, but you never know). Regardless, I welcome your thoughts.
EDIT: I should mention that The New Republic has been unashamedly pro-Israel forever. Otherwise they wouldn't have come close to printing this.