Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
04 December 09
One myth the negotiations over kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit should definitively debunk is that Hamas’s leadership actually cares about the fate of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.
In exchange for Shalit, Israel has offered to free 980 Palestinian prisoners, including 450 chosen in consultation with Hamas. And by all accounts, it has already agreed to almost all the 450 specific prisoners whose release Hamas is demanding: the London-based daily Al-Hayat claimed today that Israel has agreed to 400 of them; the Palestinian dailyAl-Ayyam claimed yesterday that Israel has agreed to all but 15.
Hence if Hamas really wanted to free a large number of Palestinian prisoners — including hundreds involved in some of the worst terrorist violence of the past two decades — all it had to do was say yes. And since the handful Israel still refuses to release includes several senior Hamas figures, such a deal would even reap a public relations bonus: it would show that Hamas is willing to sacrifice for the good of the whole, to let some of its top people stay in jail in order to win freedom for almost 1,000 of its Palestinian brethren.
But in fact, Hamas has said no, publicly and repeatedly. Why? Because, as Al-Ayyamquoted a Hamas source saying, even the mere 15 prisoners whom that paper claims Israel is standing firm on are “a red line, without which there will be no deal.” Al-Hayatoffered a similar explanation.
There are only two possible ways to interpret this. One, of course, is that Hamas’s leadership cares only about the handful of top-level terrorists in its inner circle, and unless they are released, the other 900-plus Palestinians can rot in jail forever for all it cares.
.
Posts
Israel should take the top fifteen and begin executing them by firing squad over television - on every hour - until Gilad Shalit is released.
ReplyDeleteThen we will see how much they want their top staffer terrorists back.
And stop all the numbers games: one soldier, one terrorist.
While a number of people have suggested this, the problem would be what you do with the new issues that arise afterwards,. If there was proper leadership we wouldn't have the initial problem, and without it, the next set of issues are not necessarily going to be an improvement.
ReplyDelete