This may be the last of the extravagantly lopsided prisoner swaps between Israel and Hezbollah. This one, dramatic in its asymmetry, appeared generally popular with Israelis, as prisoner swaps have tended to be. More than 60 per cent of Israelis said they supported this one in the two-year run-up to yesterday’s exchange (although before it was publicly clear that the two Israeli reservists at the heart of the exchange were dead). A commentator in the Jerusalem Post called the bargain struck “a very Israeli decision”, arguing that the apparent perversity reflected the intensity of Israeli society. “Everyone is near the firing line, and being near the firing line affects one’s vision,” he said.

Few would quibble with that view of the myopic heat of Israeli politics. But Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister, in his briefing to the Cabinet on the deal a fortnight ago, suggested that Israel might need to find a cooler model to pursue. He said that while Israel’s principles demanded that no soldier be left behind, even if dead, “over the years we also learnt that this obligation has limits. A country must have limits, even when dealing with the price of freedom for soldiers.”

He suggested, according to reports, that after this deal – and any future one with Hamas for the release of Gilad Schalit, believed to be held alive in Gaza – Israel should work out new guidelines for itself in swaps.

He is right. In this deal with Hezbollah, the Shia militant group and political party, Israel received the bodies of two dead reservists, whose capture sparked the Lebanon war two years ago. In return, it handed over all five of its Lebanese prisoners, including one of totemic status in Israel and Lebanon for his murder of three Israelis, including a four-year-old girl. Israel will also give Hezbollah the remains of nearly 200 dead, killed in Israel in 60 years of fighting.

From what perspective can this be a good deal? Only by taking into account the passion that Israel has invested in the principle of leaving no soldier behind, even if dead. That underpins its code of universal military service – the sense of common threat and shared response, that the captured soldiers could have come from any family in the country.

There has been sometimes, as Israeli politicians have laid out the terms of these swaps, almost a revelling in the asymmetry, with the unspoken suggestion that one Israeli, even if dead, is worth more than a dozen of the other side.

But for all the symbolism there must be a question, as Olmert said, of whether the time is coming for Israel to extract itself from a commitment that can put it at a disadvantage to its opponents. As critics of the deals have said, they may encourage kidnapping. They may encourage the killing of hostages, if Israel will pay a price to get back the bodies anyway.

Although polls showed that many in Israel felt satisfied with the deal, in Lebanon, the returning prisoners will receive an ecstatic welcome that will contribute to the picture of Hezbollah’s growing power since 2006. Its fighters held their own in that conflict against the Israeli military. The group won much wider support from the spectacle of its success against a far more powerful and sophisticated force. It shrewdly consolidated that by rushing to help with reconstruction in the south and Beirut. The group’s political base has widened, particularly in Beirut, and its politicians have secured veto power in the new Government assembled last week. Far from improving its security by its military action in 2006, Israel has seen its opponent strengthened.

Israel’s leaders ought to focus on that wider picture without being distracted by bargains for the bodies of soldiers. The depth of feeling is understandable, but these deals give an illusion of solid results, of victories brought home, diverting attention from Israel’s mistakes and Hezbollah’s gains.

Times Recommends

• Police beg us for food. What hope is there?
• Moral darkness that engulfed Baby P
• More to Advent than cheap chocolate