'Release of terrorists will most certainly only lead to more Jewish blood being spilled'
Photo: Reuters
Breaking the cycle
Current Israeli approach to addressing captives seriously flawed
Much ink has been spilled regarding the possible release of numerous Arab terrorists for one Israeli soldier. The personal suffering of the captive, Gilad Shalit,
and the anguish of his family just a few hours away, must be truly unbearable. Together with this, however, is the near certainty that the release of terrorists will only lead to more Jewish blood being spilled. Unfortunately there is an abysmal track record that attests to the veracity of this claim. In addition, the mass release of terrorists might reduce the motivation of soldiers to continue placing themselves in situations of danger in order to capture other terrorists if they believe that their efforts are in vain.
Thus, intentionally or unintentionally, successive Israeli leaderships have placed Israel
in a lose-lose situation. Refuse to deal, the captive and his family go on suffering. Make a deal, countless others will be killed.
Big Picture
Giora Eiland
Shalit swap talks should have been part of broader negotiation process
The question that needs to be asked is “how did this happen?” More specifically, how is it that successive Israeli leaders have continued, for years, with such a detrimental lose-lose policy? What is it that has caused such impotency and inaction on the part of nearly every Israeli leader?
For starters, inaction is frequently caused by a lack of clearly defined goals and vision. Without a clearly defined goal, a person will usually just wander about and pass through life without ever really living life. True potential will not be realized and the attempted achievement of meaningful goals will usually be avoided.
In the case of recent Israeli leaders, their objective when dealing with hostage takers has been anything but clear. Unlike their counterparts many years ago, who had a clear policy that was known to all parties in the region, namely the refusal at all costs to deal with hostage takers, today’s leaders rarely ever take a firm stand on the issue. During the last 20 years their stated red lines have changed with the weather, with one capitulation following quickly in the footsteps of another.
Not surprisingly, without a clearly defined goal they have often been paralyzed by inaction when dealing with hostage takers. Thus, rather than exuding an air of confidence and projecting a very believable message to the enemy that he will be severely and overwhelmingly punished should he perform a kidnapping, Israel’s inaction, capitulations and empty threats have only served to whet the appetite of the enemy.
Something must be changed
Moreover, even in the rare case where Israel did react quickly, this being the Second Lebanon War in 2006, this was done in a way that was problematic from the start. Rather than reacting in a manner that was based upon a clear plan with explicit and achievable goals, the very opposite was true. This in fact was one of the main criticisms of the Winograd Commission set up after the war. This commission found that some of the declared goals of the war were not clear and could not be achieved, and also criticized the Olmert government for misstating and changing the goals many times.
The situation is obviously complex, but it’s clear to all that something is seriously flawed with our current approach. Therefore, it is simply inconceivable to continue along with such a lose-lose policy. Something must be changed in order for the enemy to be convinced that in the event of a kidnapping it will lose in a very big way.
For starters, a soldier should not be allowed to remain in captivity for years. It is simply immoral to prolong his, and his family’s, suffering. Action needs to be swift and overwhelming in order to bring quick closure, whatever that might be. This is by far the most moral act in a very difficult situation. It also sends a clear message to our own soldiers, young men who daily put themselves in danger in order to protect us, that in the event of a kidnapping they will not be left to languish in some small cell while our leaders turn to European mediators for help.
Furthermore, the current policy of releasing numerous terrorists must come to an end. There is overwhelming evidence, based upon more than 20 years of experience, that such releases invariably lead to more people being killed. This being the case, it is simply irresponsible to continue on with such an approach.
If adopted by the political leadership, these two changes would be the best way to prevent future kidnappings by finally sending a clear message to the enemy that it has nothing to gain and only much to lose should it decide to carry out a kidnapping. Moreover, such a policy would finally allow us to break the current lose-lose cycle.
