Israel

Almost impossible to believe

In Gilad Shalit’s first interview after being released, he says, “I hope this deal will lead to peace between Palestinians and Israelis and that it will support cooperation between both sides.” For equally dramatic pictures of the Palestinian prisoner release, see 972 Mag.
Gilad Shalit, calling his parents after just arriving in Israel:
SFC Gilad Shalit on the phone with his parents, after arriving Israel, (c) some rights reserved, ID
Gilad Shalit Salutes Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
Gilad Shalit Salutes Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, (c) some rights reserved, IDF
Shalit, hugging his father for the first time in 5 years, in the most human and touching photo of them all:
Gilad Shalit meets his father after 5 years, (c) some rights reserved, IDF
A few more photos at the IDF spokesperson’s Flickr feed.

23 thoughts on “Almost impossible to believe

  1. “I hope this deal will lead to peace between Palestinians and Israelis and that it will support cooperation between both sides.”
    Perhaps less impossible to believe, but a very senior Hamas senior Gaza officials (many say the #2 man in Gaza) was literally standing right next to Shalit during the interview.
    (I saw the photo later on Channel 2 news in Israel).

  2. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/world/middleeast/shalit-interview-sharply-criticized-by-just-about-everyone.html
    I don’t know if mentioned in the articles, but I was watching arutz 2 live, and the Arab Affairs correspondent was pointing out that the translator from Hebrew to Arabic was completely editing and changing what Gilad said. He gave one example of Shalit’s response when asked whether Palestinian prisoners should go free. His response was “I will be glad to see them free, but only if they don’t return to fighting Israel.” The Arab translation – “I will be glad to see them free.”

  3. but I do feel at some point it is at a cost too high.
    It’s such a bittersweet day because, on the one hand, everybody is happy for the Schalit family.
    But, on the other hand, there is that sinking feeling that this will only lead to more kidnappings and a renewal of bombings.
    What’s worse is the message sent to the Palestinians: Fatah’s method of negotiations, cooperation, and offers to compromise lead to Palestinians rotting in Israeli prisons . . . while Hamas’s method of violence and rejection lead to the release of prisoners and huge celebrations. It’s so scary because, when push comes to shove, is it really that difficult to kidnap one soldier? What if Hamas starts kidnapping civilians?
    ((I know, I know, I’ll preempt all of the usual pro-peace Jews here. I concede that Hamas’s leadership actually put on tefillin each morning and pray for a return to Zion, and by claiming it is a rejectionist group I’m simply showing that I’ve been trapped in the AIPAC-designed right-wing echo chamber for too long. But what can I do? I’m a weak-willed zombie.))

  4. Not so fast, J1. I share your concern about Hamas. I do think that they’re more complicated than just “a terrorist organization;” they do provide some legitimate governmental services to Gazans. That said, I certainly don’t want their tactics towards Israel to be legitimized over those of the PA, which, however ineffective at times, have been infinitely more morally defensible (and, you know, not in violation of international law).

  5. J1, you really think the meeting at Hamas HQ is like:
    Cool, we finished the Shalit job. NOW we can finally start working on more Zionist prisoners! By Allah’s beard, the boys will be glad they can stop smoking sheesha with a thumb up their ass!

  6. I do think that they’re more complicated than just “a terrorist organization;” they do provide some legitimate governmental services to Gazans.
    @rb
    One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I didn’t write that Hamas is “just a terrorist organization.” I don’t dispute that Hamas does much good for the people in Gaza. I’ve written here often that we must acknowledge that Hamas does have a moral code by which it operates. I’m not surprised when Gershon Baskin writes that Ghazi Hamad was genuinely happy for the Schalit family upon the deal.
    What I wrote above was:
    What’s worse is the message sent to the Palestinians: Fatah’s method of negotiations, cooperation, and offers to compromise lead to Palestinians rotting in Israeli prisons . . . while Hamas’s method of violence and rejection lead to the release of prisoners and huge celebrations.
    Can anybody here dispute this?
    (obviously jg cannot)

  7. Really, Israel should have released every Palestinian prisoner as part of this deal. That would have gone a long way in reducing motivation to kidnap Israeli soldiers.

  8. I don’t dispute this:
    “What’s worse is the message sent to the Palestinians: Fatah’s method of negotiations, cooperation, and offers to compromise lead to Palestinians rotting in Israeli prisons . . . while Hamas’s method of violence and rejection lead to the release of prisoners and huge celebrations.”
    It makes perfect sense because Netanyahu is the Hamas partner for not having peace.

  9. Ok, so you’ve changed your view about Hamas. So we do agree after all.
    (although I’d say that Hamas does want peace, it just doesn’t want a reconciliation with Israel)

  10. @rb
    I read it. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens with the Palestinians. I would never claim to be an expert on that society.
    I really do think Israel should have just released all of the prisoners now, btw., because another thousand will get released after the next Gilad Schalit sits in a dungeon somewhere for five years.
    The strangest occurrence in all of this is that Tzipi Livni gave an interview opposing the deal a few days ago, and she said that she waited to comment until now because she promised Noam Schalit that she wouldn’t say anything up to a certain time.
    In what other country would a private citizen–whoever he is–order the parlament’s opposition leader not to speak about a huge policy decision?
    Israel is a crazy place, and Jews are just crazy people.

  11. @J1 –
    I assumed that dynamic was created by conscription into an active military, and that any democracy that had such a situation could well behave similarly. Of course, it’s hard to compare because there really is no similar democracy with conscription into an active military where kidnappings happen. The best comparison is Turkey. Anybody know how Turkey deals with kidnapping of military personnel by the PKK?

  12. @Dan O.
    I don’t know of any country like Israel.
    We had 5 years of almost everybody saying that the government had to make a trade for Schalit, and then literally the day after Schalit returned to Israel many of those some people (go back and look at the newspapers) were writing about what a failure the whole affair was, and how it would lead to a worse situation.
    And, again, I’d be much more happy about the whole thing if Israel had just released every Palestinian prisoner. Instead, it’s basically 100% that somebody sitting in their home in Israel right now–it could even be me or you–is going to end up stuck in a basement somewhere in Gaza or Damascus at some point, for years on end, until another 1,000 prisoners are released. Why go through all of this again? Just unilaterally release all of the prisoners now.

  13. @J1, I don’t know that releasing more prisoners really would have helped – as long as the occupation continues, more people will be imprisoned, so in very economic terms, Hamas will pretty much always have an incentive to kidnap soldiers.

  14. @rb
    I’m not sure. I don’t know that if Hamas were to kidnap somebody and then demand that Israel withdrawal from, say, all of Area B (remember those terms?) that it would work.
    Some of it might depend on Hamas’s understanding of what Islam teaches about kindappings, etc. Maybe somebody here might know about that stuff.
    What we do know for sure is that, right now, it’s guaranteed that it’s only a matter of time before there is a new Gilad Schalit, who will end up being released for another 1,000 prisoners.

  15. @rb
    Maybe I misread your point. In addition, Israel might as well stop taking Palestinian prisoners because it’s going to continue the same cycle, which is just a symptom of the same war have been fighting for a century and we’ll keep fighting for another century.
    (Excuse the pessimism, but the past week in Israel has just been a bit stranger than usual.)

  16. Pessimism absolutely excused.
    All this said, it’s worth considering that now that Israel has successfully pulled off this kind of prisoner swap, they could probably get away with a more militant reaction next time. And as far as taking prisoners goes, I agree – taking more prisoners doesn’t really solve much of anything at this point. This is not to say that I’m eager to see criminals go free, but at a certain point the act of taking, housing, and negotiation the release of prisoners becomes a distraction from the larger goal of ending the occupation.
    I really don’t think anyone in the Israeli government seriously believes the occupation is sustainable, I just think they’ve yet to find a way to end it without reneging on the kind of nasty nationalist rhetoric that any country at war falls into and comes to rely on. It also seems to me that Israel could generate a fair amount of good will in the West Bank just by cutting back on the amount of force it uses against demonstrations. Giving those protests more breathing room would redirect the energy Palestinians now put into violent resistance and the rationalization thereof into peaceful protest, which would be good for everyone.

  17. @J1
    Let’s put aside the point of incentives for a moment. I understand what you’re saying there. I’m really wondering about political reaction. I mean, was this a move the majority coalition had to make in order to buoy support for Likud? And is the fallout a combination of relief that Shalit is free combined with dissonance about the incentives you noted, plus an awareness on the part of the opposition of what this does for Likud?
    It’s the latter point that really bothers me. I mean, it seems to me as if Bibi really wanted to change the subject after Eilat, Anatot, J14, and the Knesset’s rejection of the show committee’s recommendations. So, the deal seems like something straight out of the American political playbook, and not especially Israeli craziness. The idea is to bolster your own support while creating dissonance (therefore apathy) among your political opponents. It seems like it’s working. Am I far off?

  18. The idea is to bolster your own support while creating dissonance (therefore apathy) among your political opponents. It seems like it’s working. Am I far off?
    I don’t know more than does anybody else, but it seems to me like this is Bibi’s idea.
    To be fair, though, he’s not just trying to stay in power, he does believe that his policies are what’s best for the country–his economics/holding onto the territories/possibly Iran in the future.
    Perhaps the Schalit deal is an “easy” way for him to gain some points, compared to the “tougher” decisions?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.