Welcome Back

After 1,941 days—over five years—in captivity, Gilad Shalit returned home to Israel today. In exchange for releasing him, Hamas negotiated the release of 1,027 jailed Palestinian (and Israeli-Arab) terrorists. While there's great joy for the Shalit family, the agreement also elicited a barrage of criticism. From bereaved families of terror victims who were killed in attacks planned, ordered and/or perpetrated by some of those freed in the deal (who petitioned the High Court of Justice to stop the deal), right-wing politicians (and their supporters) who “on principal” are against freeing convicted terrorists especially those with “blood on their hands” and those who see themselves as critics of the government and its component parts. In the end, despite the complaints, Gilad is free and home with his family and free to get his life back in order.

For me, it’s a mixed blessing. On the one hand, I’m ecstatic that he’s free and seemingly in good health—at least physically and I hope also mentally/emotionally. On the other hand, a lot of questions continue to nag me. Questions principally about the price Israel paid and the entire process of redeeming him from captivity,

1.      How did Israel allow him to get kidnapped?

2.      Why it took so long to finalize a deal?

3.      How come no rescue attempt was made?

4.      The role of public opinion and the media in “forcing the government’s hand” to make a deal.

5.      Was this a matter of placing personal concerns above the “national interest”?

6.      Its effect on the peace process.

7.      Its effect on international affairs; the Middle East in general and with Egypt, Hamas [Gaza], the PLO/Palestinian Authority [West Bank and Mahmud Abbas], the Arab world specifically, as well as other interested actors (the Quartet), the UN, and human rights groups.

8.      Is this good for Israel, both in for the short and long-term, especially with regard to deterring further kidnappings and violence?

According to Amos Harel, the abduction was planned in advance.

The terrorists captured Shalit by crossing the border from the Gaza Strip before sunrise through a tunnel hundreds of meters long. The tunnel had been dug under the border fence over the course of months. When the terrorists surfaced in Israeli territory, they came up behind the IDF troops, who were facing Gaza … At 5:13 A.M., three separate groups of terrorists attacked Shalit’s tank and a guard tower, along with an empty armored personnel carrier the IDF had placed there as a decoy. All three targets were hit by antitank fire. Shalit’s tank went up in flames, triggering a fire extinguisher. … Within six minutes of the assault, two terrorists had returned to Gaza with the wounded Shalit. IDF officers recall the period that followed as chaotic, noting that it took time before they realized a soldier was missing.

Here’s the first kicker:

The incident occurred less than a year after Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip. To some extent, the country was paying the price for repressing concern over the security situation in Gaza. Because the government considered it important to present the disengagement from Gaza as an accomplishment, the dangers posed by the new situation were played down. The defensive deployment around Gaza was only partial, and the IDF was not allowed to enter the strip to foil terrorist attacks.

The second kicker:

At his briefing after Shalit’s abduction, Halutz [the IDF Chief of Staff at the time] told reporters the IDF had no advance warning of an attack. This enraged Yuval Diskin, then head of the Shin Bet security service. In fact, the Shin Bet had given the army detailed, specific information about an expected attack. Based on this warning, the army had increased its troop levels somewhat along a 14-kilometer stretch of the border. But Halutz’s lie was quickly exposed when reporters interviewed the wounded member of Shalit’s tank crew: He confirmed that the sector had been on alert for a possible abduction.

The third kicker:

Ultimately, none of the senior officers involved paid the price of the debacle. Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant, who was GOC Southern Command at the time, was later nominated as IDF chief of staff, though his nomination was later withdrawn for unrelated reasons. Aviv Kochavi, then commander of the Gaza division, now heads Military Intelligence.

The fourth:

A subsequent investigation found that another tank commander actually saw the terrorists crossing back into Gaza with Shalit, but did not open fire because he was awaiting permission. In retrospect, this might have foiled the abduction, but it could also have resulted in Shalit’s death.

The prescient comment:

The day after the abduction, a defense official well-versed in hostage negotiations advised then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to close a deal immediately. “Give Hamas 250 people and it will be over,” he said. “Otherwise, it will take you three years and cost you 1,000 prisoners.”

Instead, Olmert opted to exploit the kidnapping to try to crush Hamas.

Five and half years later, the defense official appears correct.

Turkish coffee (mud slinging)

Today's [Thursday 21 April] New York Times offers an apologetic opinion piece by the president of Turkey Abdullah Gill "The Revolution's Missing Peace."


The suggestion that the success of the current wave of uprisings against the dictators of the Middle East is even remotely connected to or even dependent upon Israel or the Israeli-Palestinian(Arab) conflict is nonsense. Maybe, he's trying to prepare the ground for the next Turkish-led flotilla to 'liberate' Gaza from the Israeli blockade (as opposed to the Hamas government and its suppression of democracy). As such, it's an extension of Turkish government (and foreign) policy and Islamic propaganda.

He opens his op-ed with:

The wave of uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa is of historic significance equal to that of the revolutions of 1848 and 1989 in Europe. The peoples of the region, without exception, revolted not only in the name of universal values but also to regain their long-suppressed national pride and dignity. But whether these uprisings lead to democracy and peace or to tyranny and conflict will depend on forging a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and a broader Israeli-Arab peace.

The plight of the Palestinians has been a root cause of unrest and conflict in the region and is being used as a pretext for extremism in other corners of the world ...

Let's see, is he saying that the revolts in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and currently in Syria are connected to Israel? Funny, with the exception of Egypt (whose masses always had problems with the peace treaty with Israel), I have seen no Israeli/Jewish component in the protests. People principally want one thing, the end of current despotic and frequently corrupt political regime to be replaced by a freer/democratic society and government (even if there needs to be an interim military regime as in Egypt).

Dignity--national and personal--will be established when everyone has the freedom, without fear of the secret police and army, to fully express their needs and desires and create the changes to make their lives truly meaningful and fulfilling.

Whatever, problems Israel has and creates for itself and the region, it's the ONLY democratic government/country in the region.

So while, he makes my point by writing,

In these times of turmoil, two forces will shape the future: the people’s yearning for democracy and the region’s changing demographics. Sooner or later, the Middle East will become democratic, and by definition a democratic government should reflect the true wishes of its people. Such a government cannot afford to pursue foreign policies that are perceived as unjust, undignified and humiliating by the public. For years, most governments in the region did not consider the wishes of their people when conducting foreign policy. History has repeatedly shown that a true, fair and lasting peace can only be made between peoples, not ruling elites.

He then continues with

I call upon the leaders of Israel to approach the peace process with a strategic mindset, rather than resorting to short-sighted tactical maneuvers. This will require seriously considering the Arab League’s 2002 peace initiative, which proposed a return to Israel’s pre-1967 borders and fully normalized diplomatic relations with Arab states.

Sticking to the unsustainable status quo will only place Israel in greater danger. History has taught us that demographics is the most decisive factor in determining the fate of nations. In the coming 50 years, Arabs will constitute the overwhelming majority of people between the Mediterranean Sea and the Dead Sea ...

In such a context, Israel cannot afford to be perceived as an apartheid island surrounded by an Arab sea of anger and hostility ... A dignified and viable Palestine, living side by side with Israel, will not diminish the security of Israel, but fortify it.

He then goes on to lecture the United States, 

Moreover, it is my firm conviction that the United States has a long-overdue responsibility to side with international law and fairness when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The international community wants the United States to act as an impartial and effective mediator between Israel and the Palestinians, just as it did a decade ago. Securing a lasting peace in the Middle East is the greatest favor Washington can do for Israel.

Turkey is there, again ("in the years before Israel’s Gaza operation in December 2008" and of course, conveniently not mentioned the Marvi Mamira flotilla), to help to facilitate constructive negotiations, "once Israel is ready to pursue peace with its neighbors."


Because

it knows that a peaceful Middle East would be to its benefit, but also because it believes that Israeli-Palestinian peace would benefit the rest of the world.

Gee... that's comforting to know that Israel can count on Turkey to be its friend and assist it in bringing true peace to it [Israel] and the region as a whole.


It's time for Turkey to work on its own issues--the Kurds, Armenians, and promoting its own (secular) democracy--and get off its Islamic high horse. If it waits too long, it may fall off the EU wagon and never receive full membership.

Israel--if only the public--certainly sees the need to find a real and livable [read: safe, secure and long-term] modus vivendi with ALL its neighbors including and especially the Palestinians.

Despite Turkish contentions, it's not just Israel who needs to demonstrate 'good faith' in pursuing peace with its neighbors.

Two items in today's (Sun 5 Sept) caught my eye immediately; (a) "Schools' Civics funding cut, transferred to Jewish studies" and (b) "Neeman leaves it president to decide on Benizri pardon" (sorry, currently no link). I believe there's a direct and clear connection between the two news items.

The first discusses how the Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar (via his appointed chair of the ministry's Pedagogic Secretariat (Dr.) Zvi Zameret) cut most of its budget for the intensive civics classes for the 11th and 12th grades and the regular civics class for grade 10, and transferring the funds into the teaching of Jewish studies.

The second reports how the Justice Minister (Prof) Yaakov Neeman decision to refer the request for a pardon for former minister Shlomo Beniziri (Shas) without recommendation to President Shimon Peres. (Benizri was convicted in 2008 for accepting bribes, breach of trust, conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Last year the Supreme Court criticized his behavior and increased his jail sentence from a year and half to four years.). Neeman's behavior is viewed as highly unusual. A former  Justice Minister (and left-wing politician) Yossi Beilin suggested that it was "a clear evasion of responsibility." The case and request for pardon is viewed as a statement about Israel's commitment to addressing corruption. A working, real example of civics in action.

end -- published 30 Jan 2011