Negotiations work: checkpoints, security and GILAD SHALIT?
Beneath the media frenzy over Netanyahu’s refusal of a settlement freeze against “natural growth” (barf), there lies an amazing number of productive changes between Israel and her neighbors. IDF forces pulled out of four major West Bank cities and lifted a large number of checkpoints, turning them over to the U.S.-trained Palestinian army. Said Palestinian army is proving its mettle in cracking down on terror cells. In the biggest surprise of all, European sources say Gilad Shalit is about to turned over to Egypt in advance of Israel’s release of imprisoned children, women and Hamas legislators.
The leading stories of Netanyahu’s resistance on most fronts is not doing justice to significant on-the-ground improvements in Palestinian life nor to the near-unimaginable freedom for 3-year Hamas captive Gilad Shalit. It is with begrudging acknowledgment that I note Netanyahu had to approve these measures. Is this a sleight of hand concession from him, wherein he saves face with his coalition by resisting a settlement freeze but delivers Palestinian needs on other fronts?
The magic is reportedly credited to several approaches decried by the right-wing and Bush. The most important is improved U.S. relations with Syria (and Egypt) brought extra pressure to bring Hamas to the negotiating table. A regional approach that deals with all actors together allows gains in one corner to benefit all. To stonewall Syria and punish the Palestinian populace, yet expect results from Hamas failed. It also should be seriously noted that negotiating with Hamas delivered more results than bombing them.
Personally, I am deeply encouraged. I am not letting the official rhetoric from Netanyahu distract from the progress on the big picture. Thank God for Obama, is all I have to say, and expanded diplomacy seems to be bringing in the results we need.
May Gilad come home, may the Palestinian prisoners come home. May we finally be free of this decades-long stalemate.
Kung Fu Jew is a signatory to the “We’ve Got Your Back, Mr. President” pro-peace process campaign. Sign online, on Facebook or Twitter.
I agree with you but you left out probably the most important element in the developing Shalit story and that is former US President Jimmy Carter.
He reportedly addressed the Shalit captivity last year in Syria and again recently.
It very much looks like President Carter was a key catalyst to whatever might be unfolding.
One wonders if there will be any change in the wingnuts thinking about Carter after this latest proof that he works with not only Israel’s best interest at heart but also the United States’.
No need to print this but I see the headline is still misspelled.
“in advance of Israel’s release of imprisoned children, women and Hamas legislators.”
You should try, even for diplomatic reasons, to mask your utter hatred every once in a while. Of course I don’t even need to point out that the article you posted mentions nothing of the type of prisoners to be released, nor do I need to mention of course your denial than yes, many murderers or aids to murder are in Israeli prisons as well. You statement is actually even worse, not just as bad but actually worse, than those Israelis who say Israeli missles only kill Palestinian terrorists, not civilians. When you often post valuable commentary and information as you have before, why post these lies and propoganda?
And, just for the sake of the truth, because KFJ for some reason refuses to report what it actually says in the article he posted, I’ll do a favor and post it myself:
“[Hamas’s] officials have been consistent in their demands to Israel, through Egyptian mediators, that Cpl Shalit only be exchanged for 1,000 Palestinians being held in Israeli prisons including several who were behind major suicide attacks that killed dozens of Israelis.”
“several who were behind major suicide attacks” leaves hundreds who werent, amongst those hundreds are women, children and hamas legislators. he’s not being dishonest or hateful, friend. he’s not spreading propaganda. think you’re being a bit harsh on someone who regularly publishes pretty peace-loving, dovey stuff? you make KFJ out to be a Hamasnik in disguise, that’s not fair.
you make KFJ out to be a Hamasnik in disguise, that’s not fair
Life isn’t fair. KFJ clearly sets up a false scenario under which Hamas captured Shalit to force Israel to release “Palestinian women and children”. That’s nonsense, and anyone making such ridiculous claims should be called on it, no matter what kind of “peace-loving, dovey stuff” they write.
Utter hatred? Quite the contrary really.
First, I think the key word in that sentence is “several” Hamas prisoners who were behind major suicide attacks that killed “dozens” of Israelis. “Several” and “dozens” is not hundreds. I think perspective on both counts is really relevant here.
Second, I find the notable point of this prisoner exchange is that is seems the majority of released prisoners are innocents and political prisoners, not terrorist masterminds. The vast majority of this prisoner swap is totally uncontroversial, and the sensationalism of “oh no, they’re releasing ‘several’ Palestinians with blood on their hands” to be nearly inconsequential in the grander picture of restitution of relations between Israel and Hamas.
Hatred, hardly.
all i’m asking is that in mentioning the type of prisoners that a) Israel has in its prisons and b) possibly might be apart of a prisoner exchange deal, you mention the fact that these include a varied group INCLUDING murderurs. Not doing so, Justin, is in fact a form of proprganda – falsity by ommmision.
Political prisoners are always held for “crimes”, but at the end of the day they’re political prisoners, held to be released. Israel has released much worse.
and I think KFJ’s point is that the number of people under 18, women and hamas legislators FAR exceed the number of murderers. NOT mentioning that is excusing Israel’s crimes which effect many more people than the crimes of the murderers (which are certainly heinous in their own right)
“NOT mentioning that is excusing Israel’s crimes which effect many more people than the crimes of the murderers (which are certainly heinous in their own right)”
I agree. If I would have been posting here, I would like to think that I would have done so. Which is why I saw that KFJ has is not only a good writer, but is generally comprehensive in his posts. Here, he clearly intentionally left out a key component of some of the types of Palestinian prisoners Israel holds (which I assume he did that because he considers all arrests of Palestinians and their imprisonment in Israel as another tool of the occupation, and therefore, phrased it in such a way to paint a picture of Israeli arrests not targeting terrorists at all, and therefore purely political).
I will say the under 18 stat though is a bit meangingless though. There has been a history of Palestinian violence against Israeli from those under 18. I understand the grouping of minors along with women as not the typical type of people you would expect to see in prison, and there are elements in international law that deal specifically with the incarceration of minors, but I would say it’s important here to look at a lot of these cases and see why they were arrested in the first place. Yes, some are arrested simply for being a member of Hamas, but not all.
Amit, it’s true that all non-Israeli prisoners Israel has arrested (including from other Arab countries) are by definition political prisoners. However, my personal opinion (though clearly not the goverment’s policy) would be that there should a differentiation between those who were arrested for acts of violence against Israeli civilians which led to death (or where the clear intention was there, i.e. a bomber with a suicide belt arrested before he/she could detonate it), and others who are arrested for various reasons (illegally in Israel, member of a banned group, etc.). While I am against the occupation, and am fully in favor of a diplomatic solution leading to a fully sovereign Palestinian state, I also think Israel should hold the first group of prisoners either for a complete prison sentence (yes, they should have typical trials like all Israelis held in jail, and I’m sorry they don’t), or until a diplomatic final status agreement is in place. All prisoners will of course be released to the Palestinians at that time, even those directly responsible for Israeli deaths.
Regarding whether the first group of prisoners should be freed in prisoner exchange deals, though it’s obviously painful, in the end I am against such deals – 1,000 for 1, or even 100 for 1. And in nor way should prisoners – in either group – be freed as a “gesture” to the Palestinians. I am very much against this policy, and think the idea in itself is illogical.
Jason, I’m with you: Israel should stop taking prisoners.
Great!
It seems like both Hamas and Israel today deny the weekend media reports that any progress has made on a prisoner exchange deal.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1096155.html
For what it’s worth, I intended to put the terrorist/innocents ratio into perspective, not whitewash terrorists entirely. Thanks for being precise in your criticism, which is a lot better than most of my critics offer. Thanks for reading, and good point.
Reading through older posts…
Wow, how silly this article is just a week later!
Haaretz has your number, KJF.
Two important articles:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1106393.html
http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/oppenheimer/entry/hope_from_bethlehem_posted_by
KFJ wrote:
The magic is reportedly credited to several approaches decried by the right-wing and Bush. The most important is improved U.S. relations with Syria (and Egypt)
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/fresh-clashes-in-syria-as-thousands-protest-assad-regime-1.350910
Good call.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world/middleeast/21syria.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast
From the NY Times article:
“Thousands gathered in and around the Omari mosque in Dara’a, chanting their demands: the release of all political prisoners; trials for those who shot and killed protesters; the abolition of Syria’s 48-year emergency law; more freedoms; and an end to pervasive corruption. “No fear after today,” the crowd chanted, according to witnesses and human rights activists.
Even as a group of prominent Dara’a citizens sat down for talks with Mr. Assad’s delegation, there was pandemonium in the streets. As the protests grew heated, the police sprayed tear gas, further angering the protesters, who began tearing down a poster of Mr. Assad in the main square of Dara’a. The police then opened fire into the crowd, witnesses said. ”
It’s just astounding–absolutely astounding–that so many “Progressives” spent years knocking some of the policies of the W. Bush Administration, for instance, Bush’s hesitance to embrace the Assad regime, which so many “Progressives” argued is a key to American policy in the Middle East.
Young people in Syria are brave enough to face gun fire in their fight for more liberties . . . while the “Progressive” world in the US has insisted that America embrace Assad. Unbelievable.
KFJ wrote, in June 2009:
A regional approach that deals with all actors together allows gains in one corner to benefit all. To stonewall Syria and punish the Palestinian populace, yet expect results from Hamas failed.
Thank God for Obama, is all I have to say, and expanded diplomacy seems to be bringing in the results we need.
If this weren’t the actual line of so many in the “Progressive” world, then it might actually be comical. It’s just hard to fathom.
Sheesh, someone’s got a long memory.
@Victor.
We had years of “Progressives” self-assuredly insisting that W. Bush was a fool for talking about more freedoms in the Arab world, and self-assuredly insisting that the US must do more to engage “moderate” Arab regimes, and self-assuredly insisting that solving the Palestine problem is the key to ameliorating so much anger in the Arab world . . .
. . . and in a few months we’ve seen all of these myths crumble completely, as hundreds-of-thousands of Arabs are saying that, with all due respect for the sagacity of the Western Progressive, I want a chance at the life that millions of others in this world have, and I don’t want to wait . . .
It’s just confusing–to me–how people bought into those myths to begin with.
It is amazing that, as conventional wisdom shifts, it doesn’t take much time out to reflect that it has shifted. People who are convinced they are right today rarely admit they were wrong yesterday, and they are never called to account for past errors because we judge intent, not outcomes. If your intent is good and righteous, then you can never be wrong, even when you are.
@Victor:
It’s bad enough that the entire West–Israel included–has perpetuated the decades-old-lie that the regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia were somehow “moderate.”
What’s worse is that so many people who actually consider themselves champions of human rights were so adamantly insisting that the West “re-set” its relationship with the Syrian regime and with the government in Iran.
This isn’t ancient history. We’re talking about the early days of the Obama Administration even. Forget you, or me, or KFJ, I’m talking about foreign policy “experts” who were absolutely convinced that engaging Assad was a key foreign policy move. I’m talking the American NSA, who said in 2009 that if he could solve one problem in the world–just one problem–it would be Palestine, because that’s the “epicenter” of the region’s woes. Just stop and think about that. Either that was intellectual dishonesty or, a lot worse, the American NSA was completely out of touch with the reality in the Middle East. It’s hard to believe–at least for me.
Forget the NSA, which is half a world away. Wasn’t Gabi Ashkenazi strongly in favor of giving up the Golan to Assad to pry Syria away from Tehran? You can’t get more local, more nuanced and more serious than the commander of the IDF.
@Victor.
Not just Ashkenazi, but most of the Israeli establishment supports a deal with Syria, for that very reason–to lure Syria away from Iran, and into the American sphere, and to help stabilize Lebanon (ie, to have Syria exert more control in Lebanon, although now from a more pro-Western stance,) and to provide more a buffer against movements like al-Queda. I tend to think that approach is a huge mistake, because it perpetuates a terrible situation in the Arab countries. But, at least there is some logic to Ashkenazi’s thinking.
My shock is more with the many people who champion themselves as Progressives, as human rights advocates, who up until a few months ago were absolutely convinced that a key American foreign policy should be stronger engagement with Arab dictators. Read KFJ’s words again (from June 2009):
The magic is reportedly credited to several approaches decried by the right-wing and Bush. The most important is improved U.S. relations with Syria (and Egypt)
A regional approach that deals with all actors together allows gains in one corner to benefit all. To stonewall Syria and punish the Palestinian populace, yet expect results from Hamas failed.
Thank God for Obama, is all I have to say, and expanded diplomacy seems to be bringing in the results we need.
What do you think improved U.S. relations with Syria and Egypt means? It means providing more assistance to the Mubarak and Assad regimes!
And, as you noted, we now see so many of the same people (in no means just KFJ) supporting the revolutions in the Arab world, against those exact same regimes. I’m glad everybody is supporting those revolutions–I do as well. I’m just shocked that nobody is coming forward and admitting that they might have been off base.
And, it does beg the question as to the wisdom of the political approach of those on the far-Left who, like those on the far-Right, are ABSOLUTELY self-assured in their convictions.
http://begthequestion.info
Damn you, BZ.
I don’t know what will happen in Syria, but as someone who has been reading Michael Totten for years, I do know the Alawites have carved out a “Jewish option” for themselves in the West of the country. If Assad goes down – I’m waiting for the mob to call him a Jew too, like Qadaffi and Mubarak – and Sunni Arabs take over, the Levant will be a very different place.
@Victor.
Fine. Your guess is as good as the rest of ours as to what might happen.
But, at least you aren’t arguing for some theory that we need to return the Golan to help Assad moderate, and that Assad can’t make reforms because his people are so enraged about Palestine, and that Hizbollah is only strengthened in Lebanon because of the Israeli occupation of the Golan, etc. Some of this stuff is either intellectual dishonesty, or simple naivette.
In any event, there was a bombing today in Jerusalem; let’s hope that everybody recovers.
“naivete” (for BZ)
J1, to be fair to KFJ and the “progressives”, Bush’s policy of aggressive containment wasn’t doing very much to resolve the Syrian and Iranian dilemmas. Nothing short of war, the threat of war, or domestic upheaval could modify the behavior of these regimes. What was unfortunate is not that Obama extended his open hand and that KFJ cheered, but that the Administration (and “progressives”) were not intellectually capable of changing policy once “engagement” clearly had failed. Instead, they decided it’s all Israel’s fault.
@Victor:
IMHO, W. Bush made all kinds of terrible mistakes–including both wars.
I don’t really think there is very much the West can do vis-a-vis the problems in the Arab world and Iran, other than work toward ending our addiction to oil. We see how well that is going.