Elder of Ziyon Misses The Point
Fellow blogger Elder of Ziyon has responded to my rebuttal of his arguments in support of the Shalit exchange deal by trying to extrapolate from the history of palestinian abduction of Israelis.
From 10million.org:
On the night of January 1, 1970, a group of Fatah terrorists infiltrated Metula from Lebanon and abducted a night watchman named Shmuel Rosenwasser. The terrorists, together with the abduction victim, withdrew to Kfar Kila which is located about two kilometers west of Metula in Lebanon. This was the first abduction attack perpetrated by a Palestinian terror organization inside Israel.
This terror attack was perpetrated to mark the anniversary of the Fatah’s first terror attack (placing a demolition charge at Israel’s national water conduit). January first was also considered the anniversary of the organization’s establishment. The Fatah claimed responsibility for the abduction several days after the attack and demanded that the State of Israel release 100 terrorists incarcerated in Israel while giving first priority to the terrorist Mahmoud Hijazi
Mahmoud Hijazi was a terrorist who served in the Fatah organization. On January 7, 1965 Hijazi commanded the Fatah’s first terror attack. Hijazi’s terror squad, which included 5 additional terrorists, detonated an explosive device at the water institute in moshav Nechusha situated in the Ela Valley in Israel. Hijazi was wounded and apprehended.
He stood trial at a military court which sentenced him to death. Hijazi appealed this verdict in the military appeals court, which ordered a retrial. During the trial, Hijazi demanded to be recognized as a prisoner of war. The court turned down this request and in May 1966, Hijazi was sentenced to 30 years in prison.
Hijazi was only the second person in Israeli history to be sentenced to death, after Adolf Eichmann.
The decision to swap him for Rosenwasser was only a one-to-one swap. However, and in retrospect, that was the decision that emboldened Palestinian Arabs to continue to kidnap Israelis in order to bargain for Israel’s release of other terrorists.
The Rosenwasser abduction was followed by a number of others kidnappings and attempted hostage taking, such as a 1974 attack in Beit She’an where terrorists broke into a family home for the purpose of taking them hostage and negotiating a release of terror prisoners. The 1974 Ma’alot massacre started off as a hostage drama as well. Even though Israel did not capitulate in any of the attacks on Israeli soil and usually killed the terrorists, their incentive to mount hostage-taking attacks did not lessen.
The prisoner-exchange train had already left the building in 1970. It is not possible to turn the clock back. Even if the current Israeli government had publicly announced that Shalit was considered dead and that there will be no negotiations, the public pressure in Israel would not have closed the door and Hamas would have waited for a different government to renew its demands.
For these reasons, I do not accept the argument that it is possible to remove the incentive for kidnappings by refusing to negotiate. The terrorists will continue no matter what.
The problem is I never argued we could remove the incentive for kidnappings. Rather, I suggested we could lessen it and I still hold by this argument. Of course, at the end of the day, if an opportunity presents itself, palestinian terror organizations will abduct an Israel and make exhorbitant demands. But this is different than palestinian terror organizations commiting more time and resources to this pursuit because it pays off so well. Elder may believe the train has left the station, but at any time, Israel can change its policy and send a new message.
As it stands, our current policy send the message: Abducting Israelis works.
Another problem I have with Elder’s response is his erroneous assumption my argument is that it’s possible to remove the incentive for kidnappings by refusing to negotiate. Actually, I recommended we reinstate the death penalty for terrorists, since there will always be some incentive to abduct Israelis while there are palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails.
Researchers Justus Reid Weiner and Diane Morrison point out the risk factor of Israel’s current policy of imprisoning terrorists:
Because Israel eschews the death penalty, Israel keeps terrorists alive in Israeli custody and thereby inadvertently creates a “bait” situation where terrorist groups attempt to free their men by ransoming newly-kidnapped Israelis.
Here, Elder actually agrees with me.
Reinstating the death penalty for terror attacks, which would remove any terrorists available for exchanges, may be unlikely to happen but it would be more effective – and humane.
At the end of the day, Elder and I may have to agree to disagree but we both want the same thing: Gilad Shalit home and the murderers of our men, women and children no longer in the land of the living.
About the Author
An Australian immigrant to Israel, Aussie Dave has been blogging since early 2003.Filed Under: Aussie Dave
Elder of Ziyon Misses The Point : Israellycool http://t.co/bt6N9iEO
Might it also be the case that a bunch of pro-Hamas terrorists released into the West Bank are likely to become a bigger headache for Fatah than for Israel? Maybe Netanyahu is actively trying to frustrate the efforts of the Palestinians to become a unified enemy of Israel. To me this is a politically smart move on Netanyahu’s part. The far right doesn’t like it? Too bad. Try to defeat him in the next election. With Avigdor Lieberman?!!? Good luck with that.
The problem with that logic is that you assume that these terrorists were in Hamas for some ideological purpose not simply because Hamas were the power breakers where they grew up.
The fact is that they will happily join or lend their expertise to whomever is willing to give them money and provide an outlet for violence against Israel and it’s people.
They are very unlikely to become any kind of problem for Fatah in the West Bank because as soon as they set foot there they are going to be on fat public sector pensions, hailed as heroes and probably provided free housing. Would you derail that gravy train?
These terrorists and the knowledge they bring with them represent a real threat to civilians in the settlements.
“Might it also be the case that a bunch of pro-Hamas terrorists released into the West Bank are likely to become a bigger headache for Fatah than for Israel? Maybe Netanyahu…”
Shades of Reagan arming the Taliban to fight the Soviets. We know how that worked out in the end.
“The far right doesn’t like it? Too bad. Try to defeat him in the next election. With Avigdor Lieberman?!!? Good luck with that.”
What’s that got to do with anything? You keep bringing your hobbyhorses like Avigdor Lieberman and Glenn Beck no matter the subject. How would you like it if I bashed Obama as a reply to every post of yours?
I don’t hold with Obama bashing. I’ve been plenty critical of Netanyahu, too. And Moshe Feiglin. And Danny Danon. I admit a particular enmity for Glenn Beck because I do believe he is a dominionist who only wants Jews to convert to Christianity or die. And I don’t like Avigdor Lieberman because I think he’s just a big, clumsy fat head who doesn’t represent Israel very well around the world. But I’ll try to cut back on the criticism of these two if you’ll spare my beloved president from time to time.
My point is you brought Lieberman into a thread that never mentioned it. You’ll not I didn’t say anything about your criticism of Netanyahu, despite it getting me down too, because the discussion of Netanyahu is germane to this thread. But bringing Lieberman here was a dazzling show of you letting your monomania get the better of you.
“mentioned it” s.b. “mentioned him”
“You’ll not” s.b. “You’ll notice”
Post message in haste, correct typos in leisure.
Just assassinate all the released terrorists in extra judicial killings with drones etc.
In future convicted Hamas murderers should be shot.
It’s not like Hamas needs more or less incentives to capture or kill Israelis. Capturing and retaining hostages is a significantly riskier operation than just killing them, but if Hamas can’t get their ransom demands met, they will quickly shift roles from kidnapper/extortionist to kidnapper/terrorist, and release gruesome videos of torture and mutilation. Once an Israeli is captured alive, the damage is done, unless a successful rescue mission can be accomplished.
I agree that Israel needs to have a death penalty for terrorists, but 1000 more killers out there won’t make a difference. There are so many of them.
also Barry Rubin said…
“The number 1000 is impressive but most will be chosen by Israel, meaning they will be prisoners with the lightest sentences and crimes — in other words, people who would have been released anyway during the next year or two. Israel rejected Hamas’s demand to release those being called “arch-terrorists” who were major organizers of attacks or responsible for a larger loss of life….”
also Glick seems to be pissed that Bibi gave Hamas safe passage to Egypt. Does Glick really believe Hamas has any problem going from Syria to Egypt?
Schalit would of been tortured for years while the thousands of captives in Israeli jails would of been treated humanely at the expense of the tax payer with Red Crescent visits. These terrorists that are freed are now targets for extermination as opposed to living martyrs in jails.
This deal was a one time offer. Any negotiating partner with Egypt will be gone shortly.
Is it permissible to kill unarmed captives in Halakha? I just cant see it being done. How would it be? Injections? Hangings? Firing squad?
Just shoot the f/ers during ops. Executions will piss off the haters, so we may as well just carpet bomb Gaza and be done with it.