Gilad Shalit vs. 1,027 Palestinians

Let's make a quick comparison between the people released yesterday. On the one side, there was Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, and on the other, 1,027 Palestinians convicted of various crimes, many of them murderers and accomplices. Shalit was a soldier who never targeted Palestinian civilians. Many of the released Palestinian prisoners set out to murder civilians. That's what Ahlam Tamimi did when she drove the suicide bomber to Sbarro in 2001, where he killed 15 people. That's what Amna Muna did when she lured sixteen year old Ofir Rahum to Ramallah, where she and her accomplices killed him.

Gilad Shalit, in his first public interview, said he wished for more Palestinian prisoners to be released if they don't go back to fighting Israel. He also hoped this deal would bring Israel and the Palestinians closer to peace. On the other side, some of the released Palestinian convicts called for the abduction of more Israeli soldiers. Shalit hopes for peace, released Palestinian prisoners hope for more conflict.

The Palestinians' main argument in favor of more kidnappings is that Israel only understands force, and that this is the only way to get their prisoners released. That is simply false, considering the fact that during the last four years, the Israeli government has released 1,233 Palestinians as peace gestures to strengthen Mahmoud Abbas. Of course, there is some truth to the Palestinians' claims. The only way to release mass murderers is by kidnapping Israelis. Those terrorists are the real people Hamas cares about.

The Shalit (Real) Deal

After more than five years in captivity in Gaza, an agreement has been finalized between Israel and Hamas to release abducted soldier Gilad Shalit in exchange for 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. I'm very glad the end of Shalit's captivity is about to come within a week. I can't say I'm excited about the price, though. One thousand Palestinians is astronomical. It isn't clear yet who exactly the prisoners are going to be, and which ones will be allowed to return to the West Bank. There was some good news about some of the people who won't be released, like terrorist masterminds Marwan Barghouti and Ahmed Sa'adat.

Another troubling aspect of this deal is the release of Palestinian citizens of Israel. If this is indeed part of the agreement, as the Israeli media has reported, then it is a very dangerous precedent. Not only should the Hamas not be able to be seen as the representative of Israeli citizens, no foreign organization or state should have such a role. Terrorists with Israeli citizenship should not be the subject of negotiations.

Having said all that, I can't help but have a stupid smirk when thinking about Gilat Shalit's imminent release and the big smiles on Noam and Aviva Shalit's faces yesterday.

When Prose Writers and Poets Take Over a Newspaper

Today's Haaretz is the third annual Writers' Edition (Hebrew here), marking the beginning of Hebrew Book Week. 53 Israeli and foreign authors have taken over the entire news section, op-ed pages and some of the culture section (but interestingly, TheMarker, Haaretz's economic section, is still in the hands of professional business journalists, at least in the Hebrew edition), plus there is a 120-page book section.

Here are some highlights worth reading:

• Etgar Keret joined Benjamin Netanyahu on his trip to Italy, and although he couldn't get Netanyahu to go off his talking points, it is a well-written behind the scenes look at political journalism (Hebrew here).
• Americans think Avigdor Lieberman is a warmonger, says author and literature professor Nurit Gertz, based on WikiLeaks documents (Hebrew here).
• Sami Michael wants Haifa to be a refuge for persecuted writers. The mayor and city council agree, while the government hasn't done anything to make it happen (Hebrew here).
• Leon Wieseltier says the Arab Spring means Israel needs to make peace with its neighboring peoples, not just their leaders (Hebrew here).
• Natan Zach does not believe Gilad Shalit will be released. He hopes he's wrong. I hope so, too (Hebrew here).
• Nava Semel visits a multilingual library for foreign workers and their children (Hebrew here).
• Ron Leshem is worried about the natural (and unnatural) growth of the illiberal sectors within Israeli society (Hebrew here).
• Mario Vargas Llosa calls for legalization of drugs (Hebrew here).

Gilad Shalit and Bowe Bergdahl

Sometimes, visiting blogs I don't agree with can bring up interesting information. On a visit to Mondoweiss, I learned that Congress has passed a resolution calling for the release of Gilad Shalit. The writer of the post, Jeffrey Blankfort, asks when was the last time Congress passed a resolution referring to an American soldier. He has a point.

Congress is trying to show support for Israel by calling for Gilad Shalit's release, and I have no problem with the resolution. But Congress should have also called for the release of captive American and allied servicemen in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One commenter on Mondoweiss had this to say:

How about someone important publicly asking Mike Oren, with an eye toward embarassing that robo-likudist, if the Israeli Knessett has any plans to introduce a resolution calling upon the Talibanists in Afghanistan to release PFC Bowe Bergdahl?

That's actually not a bad idea at all. The Knesset should thank Congress by reciprocating and calling for the release of all captured US soldiers. Sure, the Taliban won't listen to Israel, but neither is Hamas listening to Congress. These would be American and Israeli unhelpful (but unharmful) non-binding resolutions in support of each other's captive soldiers.

In a way, I think the US's approach towards its M.I.A's is much healthier than Israel's. Here people call 23-year old Gilad Shalit "the child of us all" and press the government to agree to all of Hamas's demands, including the release of the worst, most dangerous terrorists who are certain to return to plotting attacks against civilians. "What if it were your son being held captive?" supporters of the deal ask Prime Minister Netanyahu (one could just as well ask "What if it were your son killed by a terrorist released in the deal?") Civilians are willing to risk dying at the hands of a released murderer in exchange for Shalit, forgetting that it is the job of soldiers to protect civilians, not the other way around.

Americans don't know who Bowe Bergdahl is. He is being held captive by the Taliban. Nobody is thinking of swapping hundreds and thousands of Taliban terrorists for him. If the Taliban wants to gain something from his capture, its demands need to be modest, or they will not be met by the Obama administration. In the Shalit case, though, Hamas knows it can increase its demands because it just might get its way thanks to public pressure. Netanyahu's steadfastness on this issue is one of the very few policies of his that I support.

The "Tape for Prisoners" Deal

The Israeli government has agreed to release twenty female Palestinian prisoners, aged 15 to 42, in exchange for a recent one-minute video recording of Sgt. Gilad Shalit, proving he's alive and showing what his physical and mental health status is, more or less. Hopefully, this is the first stage before a deal with Hamas where Shalit himself is exchanged for prisoners, and not just a recording of him.

I have mixed feelings about releasing prisoners for a tape. On the one hand, I believe Palestinian prisoners should be exchanged for live Israeli prisoners, and not just for a sign of life. If these 20 prisoners are counted as a down payment for the release of Shalit, then this will be less of a negative precedent.

There is also a question of how dangerous these prisoners are. Remember, women can be as dangerous as men. What they have done to land them in prison worries me less than what they might still do. In fact, some of those who have only attempted to murder Israelis may want to try again more than those who have already killed people. Unfortunately, I am unable to make such assessments on my own.

The Shalit Deal

A deal to release 450 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit would be much more justifiable than the two deals with Hezbollah. Does that mean the current deal is a right move? No, it doesn't.

The deals with Hezbollah were so extremely wrong that it isn't hard to achieve a better agreement. We gave the Lebanese terrorist group hundreds of prisoners in exchange for soldiers' dead bodies and one living criminal. We should have only given dead bodies in exchange for dead soldiers, and the criminal, who was captured while doing something illegal, was not worth a high price.

Gilad Shalit is different. He is alive. It is right to release hundreds of living Palestinian prisoners for him. The question isn't the number. The question is who is being released exactly and how they will affect Israel's security. What these prisoners have done before is unimportant. It is important to assess what they might do if they are released. If they pose a serious threat and will carry out or plan attacks that will kill many Israelis they should not be released.

Also, Palestinians with Israeli citizenship should not be released as part of this deal. We cannot let Hamas become the representative of Palestinians inside Israel. These Israeli citizens who were involved in terrorism are not part of the Hamas's jurisdiction, or even the Palestinian Authority's. You know what? Any Israeli Arab prisoner who wants to be released as part of the Hamas deal should be given two options: either stay in prison till the end of your term, or give up your citizenship and be deported to Gaza. Who needs convicted terrorists walking Israel's streets?

So, should Israel go through with this deal? I don't know. I don't feel that I know enough about the prisoners Hamas is demanding. If the threat to Israeli civilians is low, than I support it. Otherwise, I don't.