THE MOST sensible — I almost wrote “the only sensible” — sentence uttered this week sprang from the lips of a 5-year old boy. After the prisoner swap, one of those smart-aleck TV reporters asked him: “Why did we release 1027 Arabs for one Israeli soldier?” He expected, of course, the usual answer: Because one Israeli is worth a thousand Arabs. The little boy replied: “Because we caught many of them and they caught only one.”
For more than a week, the whole of Israel was in a state of intoxication. Gilad Shalit indeed ruled the country (Shalit means “ruler”). His pictures were plastered all over the place like those of Comrade Kim in North Korea. It was one of those rare moments, when Israelis could be proud of themselves. Few countries, if any, would have been prepared to exchange 1027 prisoners for one. In most places, including the US, it would have been politically impossible for a leader to make such a decision.
Israelis could (and did) look in the mirror and say, “aren’t we wonderful?”
Immediately after the Oslo agreement, Gush Shalom, the peace movement to which I belong, proposed releasing all Palestinian prisoners at once. We organized a joint demonstration with the late Jerusalemite Arab leader, Feisal Husseini, in front of Jeneid prison near Nablus. More than ten thousand Palestinians and Israelis took part. But Israel has never recognized these Palestinians as prisoners-of-war. They are considered common criminals, only worse. This week, the released prisoners were never referred to as “Palestinian fighters”, or “militants”’ or just “Palestinians”. Every single newspaper and TV program, from the elitist Haaretz to the most primitive tabloid, referred to them exclusively as “murderers”, or, for good measure, “vile murderers.”
One of the worst tyrannies on earth is the tyranny of words. Once a word becomes entrenched, it directs thought and action. As the Bible has it: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue” (Proverbs 18:21). Releasing a thousand enemy fighters is one thing, releasing a thousand vile murderers is something else.
Some of these prisoners have assisted suicide bombers in killing a lot of people. Some have committed really atrocious acts. But others were sentenced to life for belonging to an “illegal organization” and possessing arms, or for throwing an ineffectual home made bomb at a bus hurting nobody. Almost all of them were convicted by military courts. As has been said, military courts have the same relation to real courts as military music does to real music.
All of these prisoners, in Israeli parlance, have “blood on their hands.” But which of us Israelis has no blood on his hands? Sure, a young woman soldier remotely controlling a drone that kills a Palestinian suspect and his entire family has no sticky blood on her hands. Neither has a pilot who drops a bomb on a residential neighborhood and feels only “a slight bump on the wing”, as a former chief of staff put it. The main argument against the swap was that, according to Security Service statistics, 15 percent of prisoners thus released become active “terrorists” again. Perhaps. But the majority of them become active supporters of peace. Practically all of my Palestinian friends are former prisoners.
But during the endless hours of waiting for Gilad’s return, all our TV stations showed scenes of the killings in which the prisoners-to-be-released had been involved. Yet all these prisoners fervently believed that they had served their people in its struggle for liberation.
Nelson Mandela, it should be remembered, was an active terrorist who languished in prison for 28 years because he refused to sign a statement condemning terrorism.
Israelis are quite unable to put themselves into the shoes of their adversaries. This makes it practically impossible to pursue an intelligent policy, particularly on this issue.
How was Netanyahu brought to bend? The hero of the campaign is Noam Shalit, the father who came out and fought for his son every single day during these five years and four months. So did the mother. They succeeded in raising a mass movement without precedent in the annals of the state.
If our intelligence services had been able to locate him, they would have undoubtedly tried to liberate him by force. This could well have been his death sentence. The fact that they could not find him, despite their hundreds of agents in the Gaza Strip, is a remarkable achievement for Hamas.
Israelis were relieved to discover, on his release, that he seemed to be in good condition, healthy and alert. From the moment he set foot on Israeli soil, almost nothing about the way he was treated was allowed to come out. Where was he kept? How was the food? Did his captors talk with him? What did he think about them? Did he learn Arabic? Up to now, not a word about that, probably because it might throw some positive light on Hamas.
Foreign correspondents repeatedly asked me this week whether the deal had opened the way to a new peace process. As far as the public mood is concerned, the very opposite is true. The same journalists asked me if Netanyahu had not been disturbed by the fact that the swap was bound to strengthen Hamas and deal a grievous blow to Mahmoud Abbas. They were flabbergasted by my answer: That this was one of its main purposes, if not the main one.
Abbas’ moves in the UN have profoundly disturbed our right-wing government. This government, like all our governments since the foundation of Israel — only more so — is dead set against Palestinian statehood. For Netanyahu and Co. this is the real danger. Hamas poses no danger at all. That, by the way, also explains the timing. Why did Netanyahu agree now to something he has violently opposed all his life? Because Abbas, the featherless chicken, has suddenly turned into an eagle.
On the day of the swap, Abbas made a speech. It sounded rather flat. Abbas, with all his Israeli and American friends, has got no one released for years. Hamas, using force, has released more than a thousand, including Fatah members. Ergo: “Israel understands only the language of force.”
The vast majority of Israelis supported the deal. This is the Israeli mainstream on which the hopes for the future are resting. If Netanyahu had proposed a peace agreement with the Palestinians this week, and if he had been supported by the chiefs of the army, the Mossad and the Security Service (as he was this week), the same majority would have supported him.
As for the prisoners — another 4000 are still held in Israeli prisons, and this number is liable to grow again. If all of Israel is drunk with emotion because one boy has been returned to his family — what about 4000 families on the other side? How to thwart the efforts to capture more soldiers? There is only one alternative: To open a credible way to have them released by agreement. Such as by peace, if you can excuse the expression.
Front Page Features