One never knows what to say about the on again, off again negotiations to free Gilad Shalit and the seemingly unending media stories announcing an imminent deal. So one approaches this subject with some trepidation. But there are enough serious signals that haven’t been seen before that a deal is close, that it’s worthwhile considering what could happen and its possible impact on Israeli-Palestinian relations. The outline of the proposal is that in return for releasing kidnapped IDF soldier, Gilad Shalit, Israel will release 450 Palestinian prisoners including the most prominent, Marwan Barghouti.
What is different now from previous rumors of a deal? First of all (and you won’t see this mentioned in Ethan Bronner’s NY Times report because he never acknowledges such issues), the Israeli military censor has thrown up complete embargo over coverage of this issue. The only thing Israeli media can do is speculate about the matter. They can’t report on what any minister or intelligence officer or IDF commander might have to say. This is unprecedented in Israeli history as Haaretz notes. It can only mean that Israel realizes that any false note introduced into the mix could doom the negotiations. Even more importantly, this right-wing government is extremely sensitive to criticism from its farther right flank of the idea of freeing Palestinian terrorists. Blanket censorship is one way to dampen such criticism. Bronner doesn’t want to deal with the implication of the Only Democracy in the Middle East™ using censorship in order to manipulate political debate as this would not reflect well on Israel’s “democracy.”
Ever since Shalit’s kidnapping speculation has been rampant that Marwan Barghouti would be included in the exchange. He is the most respected Palestinian political leader (including Abbas and even Haniyeh) and a potential future leader of the PA. In fact, this Haaretz article speculates that the Palestinian prisoner’s freedom might expedite the resignation of Mahmoud Abbas and his replacement by Barghouti. In today’s Palestine, his role and stature is roughly akin to that of Nelson Mandela in apartheid era South Africa.
Now, apparently both sides are indicating this VIP (very important prisoner) is slated to be freed as well. So it becomes important to speculate how this might change the Palestinian political landscape. Given how depressing (for anyone seeking peace, which excludes the Netanyahu government) the current situation is, it’s important to note that even if Barghouti is released it doesn’t mean that this will single-handedly transform the situation for the better.
I’m afraid that the current Israeli government has proven itself adept at outwaiting and outsmarting a U.S. president and the PA. So it’s doubtful that a PA headed by Barghouti (were this to happen) could work any immediate miracles. But it is worthwhile speculating what might happen in the longer term. The Netanyahu government, secure and stable as it now seems, won’t be so forever. Indeed, if a strong PA leader comes on the scene, one that Israelis feel could be trusted to deliver on his promises and who could carry Hamas with him, then the electorate might feel more secure in electing a more forthcoming government. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that a more pragmatic leader like Tzipi Livni could be elected within a year or so who might actually proceed to final status talks and negotiate a deal with the Palestinians.
Of course, there are many rivers to cross before we get to that point. But I think in the long-term this release could produce positive results for peace.
One aspect of Bronner’s reporting also calls out for critique:
Many governments, including that of the United States, want to end the embargo to relieve the suffering of the 1.5 million people in Gaza, especially after Israel’s military invasion 11 months ago, which destroyed thousands of homes and factories. But Israel has said it will not end until Mr. Shalit’s release.
Therefore, if a deal is really imminent, it may also signal the possibility of some opening of the commercial crossings.
First, no government has been willing to engage in any serious effort to oppose the Gaze siege despite the fact that is a clear breach of international law. So giving credit to nations for wanting the siege to end is an empty gift to them since they’re not willing to go to the mat to make it happen. Second, the idea that Israel will feel empowered to diminish Gaza’s suffering because Hamas has freed Gilad Shalit is laughable. Israel has SAID that it would do so and that the Shalit kidnapping is one of the developments that justifies continuing the siege. But given Israel’s hatred of Hamas and its imperviousness to the notion of honoring verbal commitments, the likelihood of ending the siege or even lessening it is practically nil.
And to use one of Walter Mondale’s best campaign lines: Ethan Bronner won’t say that. I just did.
Richard,
Respectfully, I believe it is not correct to refer the taking of Gilad Shalit (who was a soldier and not a civilian) as a kidnapping which has a completely different connotation altogether.
Uri Avnery, a prominent Israeli peace activist covered the above quite extensively in his article “A Story of Betrayal” where he felt quite strongly that the term “capture” would be more accurate under the circumstances:
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1254590727
Agreed 100%. Gilad Shalit is an active duty soldier who was captured in a military action. His correct status is prisoner of war, not a kidnap victim.
While “no man left behind” is admirable in many ways, what’s with the Israeli government and this mania with getting their guy back at heavy price if necessary? 400+ prisoners and Barghouti just for that guy?
It reminds me of when they released that child killer Samir Kuntar and four other guys in exchange for a pair of corpses.
Brett,
Were the 400+ prisoners and Barghouti dealt through the Israeli justice system and properly sentenced to imprisonment OR were they simply abducted and detained at Israel’s pleasure?
A bit of both actually. But Israeli “justice” as far as Palesitnians are concerned is hardly justice at all.
“Captives” would probably be a better and more broad terminology. I’ll use that from now on in this thread.
You have no idea what you’re talking about Brett. This is entirely within the normal range of prisoner exchanges. Go back and you’ll see historically what Israel has given up & gotten in return. There’s a long history of this sort of thing. Besides, if you dislike the terms so much perhaps you can get yrself on the negotiating team if things fail again this time. I’m sure they’d love to have a big tough guy American like you to tell them Gilad Shalit is a little pissant they shouldn’t give a crap about. Maybe you can even say that to the Shalits. It should go over well.
A history of bad exchanges does not make another bad exchange a good exchange. They’re exchanging one (potentially) living captive for hundreds of Palestinian captives (including at least one very important one in Barghouti). That’s a highly asymmetrical deal.
That’s why I pointed out the Samir Kuntar example – it’s a seriously asymmetrical exchange, and they have a history of doing that. Thanks for proving my point. My question was, why are they doing these asymmetrical exchanges? Why are they willing to give up hundreds of captives for one guy (who hopefully is alive at this point), or five living guys (including a child killer and terrorist) for two corpses earlier on? It sounds like a bad mentality, to be honest – “no man left behind” taken to a bad extreme.
*Yawn* Get back to me when you have an actual point, and not just the usual snide personal attacks. I’ve made my argument.
You have an incredible amt. of nerve. You really do. You live a comfortable life wherever the hell you live and yet you would substitute yr alleged knowledge and experience for that of a people which has fought continuously for 60 yrs or longer in the face of terror, wars, etc. & you would have the unmitigated gall to tell them how they should conduct themselves when one of their young soldiers is captured. Where do you get off? Really where do you get the nerve to sit there pontificating?
My pt is that you’re a cruel, ignorant, self-righteous, smug SOB and you’re wearing out my patience. Why don’t you go join the IDF, get yrself captured & then when Hamas videotapes you big tough guy tell the camera that yr family & gov’t shouldn’t negotiate to free you unless it’s an even exchange. And that when Hamas refuses the terms that you’ll be happy to take a bullet for yr stupid arbitrary, meaningless principles of symmetrical prisoner exchange.
Oh, go fuck yourself, Richard. Anyone with a brain could see it’s a bad deal that encourages kidnapping in the future by these groups in the hope that they can then use them for this type of thing. And that type of shit has led to wars in the past – remember how the 2006 War got started after years of Hezbollah attempts to kidnap Israeli soldiers patrolling the border area?
If anything, the Israelis should be more aware of this than others. You didn’t see them completely lose their shit and make a bad deal like this when the Munich kidnappings happened, did you?
Ha! It takes a big man to insult someone from behind a comment rules system that bans insulting him back. But if you’d rather sit here and bathe in a circle-jerk, feel free.
You’ve been banned for an outrageous violation of my comment policy.
You know incredibly little about the history of hostage taking. Israel has experimented w. every possible response to such attacks. When it chose to ignore them & refused to negotiate it often ended with the hostage/s being killed. When it attempted to liberate hostages it often ended w. some being killed. After such experiences Israel decided it had to negotiate. But you wouldn’t know much about that because you think you know everything.
More incomplete history…Hezbollah attacked Israeli soldiers but it didn’t start a war. Israel’s response was what started a war. That was Israel’s doing, not Hezbollah’s.
Diff. situation entirely. In that case, an attempt to liberate the hostages led to all being killed by apparently inept German forces. If there had been Israeli hostages alive after the kidnapping, who knows what Germany or Israel would have agreed to. But most assuredly Israel would not have seen any of them return if it had refused to negotiate as you so sagely advise.
I save the insults for right asses like yrself who are willing to expend every Israelis’ blood but their own. People like you really burn me up. Shed yr own blood for Israel & then you can advise Israel on when or how to shed its own.
It was coming one way or another. Have fun with your unrealistic hopes for a two-state solution, getting past the Right of Return, and hope you don’t end up in a pettier version of the Pakistan India feud.
Oh, one more thing – have a good time getting past the “unified Jerusalem” issue. Religious fanaticism and unrealistic hopes are a bitch, aren’t they?
Well, that’s it. Adios, Richard.
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
“a seriously asymmetrical exchange, and they have a history of doing that.”
That’s pretty funny given the seriously – as in hugely – asymmetrical number of kidnappees (as in non-combatants, including children), “scurity” detainees, political and other prisoners held by Israel at any given time. When one compares the enormously disproportionate number of Palestinian and Lebanese imprisoned by Israel to the number of Israelis imprisoned by everyone else the exchange does not seem at all out of line.
The case against Samir Kuntar is sufficiently problematical that it is not reasonable to refer to him definitively as a child killer. The same cannot be said for many members of Israel’s military, and it certainly cannot be said for Israel’s military command.
Seems that Israel is in a state of panic to get the old nowhere leading “negotiation” show back on the stage. The arrogant attitude and behaviour during the first months of Netanyahu’s government has been really costly to Israeli foreign policy and image. Hamas and others have finally realized that they do not need rockets when they “have” such ultimate weapons like Lieberman and gentile baby killing allowing rabbis.
Brett,
If reports by an Israeli human rights group B’Tselem are accurate then most Palestinians languishing in Israeli prisons should not even be there in the first place thereby making the idea of an “asymmetrical” exchange pointless.
Please refer to:
http://www.btselem.org/English/Administrative_Detention/20080907_Minors_in_Administrative_Detention.asp
http://www.btselem.org/Download/200812_Annual_Report_Eng.pdf