Silverberg - The Trauma of the Shalit Exchange

Mark Silverberg
International Analyst Network
15 October '11

http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=3863


Much has been written of the Israeli commitment not to leave a wounded or dead soldier in the field, and of late, the wisdom of trading a thousand terrorists for a single Israeli hostage. The release of Gilad Shalit after five years in Hamas captivity, however, is more than a moral issue for Israelis. It is an emotional roller coaster that has triggered national soul-searching over whether to negotiate with a terrorist organization (Hamas), and how high a price to pay for one soldier's freedom given the strategic, national and security implications that arise from such an exchange.

On the one hand, the Shalit case represents the classic struggle between heart and mind. The issue tears at the national and religious fabric of the Jewish state. The concept of pidyon shvuyim, or the redemption of captives, is a religious imperative for Judaism, with deep roots based upon centuries of profound suffering. Historically, Jewish communities in the Diaspora have reduced themselves to poverty to save hostages and they have done so with the approval of their religious authorities. But this moral imperative to protect its sons and daughters at all costs is today tempered by the fear of releasing terrorists who will most likely return to murder again as happened after the 1985 Ahmed Jibril terrorist exchange that led to the first Intifada and the deaths of one hundred and seventy-eight Israelis. According to the head of Israel’s domestic intelligence agency (Shin Bet), Yoram Cohen, sixty per cent of those released in prisoner swaps return to activity in terrorist organizations.

Objectively speaking, Israel can expect to pay a terrible price for this exchange given that the deal involves reducing the life sentences of two hundred and eighty mass murderers responsible for hundreds of Israeli deaths. Many will argue that there can be no moral or practical justification for such an exchange. Virtues such a morality have their defects, and the line between the moral imperative to free Shalit and the necessity of protecting the nation from future terrorist attacks is a thin one. Should the deal unfold as planned, albeit for the best of reasons, Israel will have confirmed in the minds of its enemies that the kidnapping and murdering of Israelis pays great dividends.



While the life of Gilad Shalit and the horror he must have experienced in his years of captivity cannot be minimized, his release under these circumstances not only represents a threat to the Israeli nation, but is an insult to the families of other Israeli victims of terrorism who believe that it is wrong to negotiate with murderers, let alone release them to murder again.

The release of a thousand terrorists will bring no comfort to the families of Sasson Nuriel, Ofra Felix and Ori Shahor who were murdered by terrorists in 2005, or to the family of Nachshon Wachsman – a soldier who was kidnapped and murdered by Hamas terrorists in October 1994, or to the families of those who perished in the Passover Seder suicide bombing attack at the Park Hotel in Netanya in May 2002, or to Bentzi Ben-Shoham, whose sister was killed in the 2002 terrorist attack at Café Moment in Jerusalem, or to the families who had to bury what was left of their loved ones after the August 2001 Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing in Jerusalem – especially given that the Sbarro murderess, Ahlam Tamimi, who drove the suicide bomber to that restaurant and several other terrorists involved in the above murders are among those to be released including the perpetrator of the Bus 405 Tel Aviv-Jerusalem attack in 1989 that claimed sixteen lives, the terrorist who killed ten Israelis in Wadi Harmiyeh north of Ramallah in 2002, and several perpetrators involved in the lynching of two Israeli reservists in Ramallah in October 2000.

There would be some justice, perhaps, if the release of these murderers signified an end to further acts of terrorism, but that will not be the case. Hamas leaders have already said so. To the Israelis who value life above all else, the Shalit affair is a moral issue that carries dangerous practical consequences, but to Israel’s enemies, it is a vindication of their strategy, guarantees future kidnappings and murders of Israeli civilians, and constitutes a victory for the jihadists not to mention a betrayal of those who have lost loved ones to terrorism and who must now watch the jubilation of these serial killers as they are set free.

Strategically, this exchange has sent a message of weakness to Israel’s enemies and will be interpreted as Israeli capitulation to terrorism. Terrorists now would know it’s just a matter of time before they’d be freed in the next deal for the next kidnapped Israeli. At a news conference in Damascus, Hamas' political chief, Khaled Meshaal vowed to continue efforts to kidnap Israeli soldiers to obtain the release of more “prisoners”. The Shalit abduction was not the last, he said: "We got 1,027 out of jail and we'll recover the remaining 8,000 too."

Giulio Meotti summed up Israel’s trauma over this exchange on Arutz Sheva (Israel National news) when he wrote:

“Next week, when most of the Israelis will share the Shalits’ joy and concern about the mental health of their son, let’s hope that many others will remember the aftermath of the suicide attacks - the victims arranged near the carcass of the bus, the bodies placed in black bags, the Polaroid photos, the remains of a stroller, the scattered gray matter on the windows nearby, the Nazi number tattooed on burned arms, the acrid odor of burned flesh and hair, the teeth and the DNA by which the victims were identified, the little pieces of jewelry that were everything a mother found at the morgue, the school notebooks, the military berets, the tennis shoes, the kippot of every color and the officers’ insignia.”

In the case of Gilad Shalit, Israelis no longer have to choose between the well-being of their country and the well-being of their "son" whom Shalit represented to many of them. But the exchange is only a temporary reprieve. The unfortunate reality is that so long as Israel’s enemies regard death, “martyrdom” and hatred as more important than the sanctity of human life, Israel will not see an end to these atrocities. Sooner or later, Israel will learn that the better course is not to provide terrorists an opportunity to murder again, but to give its enemies reasons to think twice before taking Israeli hostages in the first place.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.