The Kuntar Deal--Not The First Time Releasing Murderers

Israel has a long history of exchanging prisoners in order to obtain the release of her soldiers. The Jewish Virtual Library has a list covering 50 years from 1948 to 1998.

Also, the current deal with Hizbollah is not the first instance of Israel trading a murderer--or murderers--for Israeli soldiers:

In practice, Olmert was in the same position as then-defense minister Yitzhak Rabin in the Ahmed Jibril deal. In that swap, on May 20, 1985, 1,150 Arab prisoners, among them some of the most vicious killers, their hands literally dripping with blood, were freed in exchange for three Israeli captives. Rabin later confessed that the pressure of the families was more than he could bear.

But while Rabin was the Defense Minister at the time, he was not the Prime Minister who OK'ed the deal. The Jabril deal came in the context of a new policy in dealing with the Palestinian Arabs:

...Contrary to Shamir’s perception of the facts, the IDF was unable to properly handle the “Intifada” (Popular Uprising) and scored only limited success in Lebanon. Other cabinet members, such as Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, maintained that concurrently with military action against the Palestinian organizations, Israel must push forward political initiatives that would bring an end to the conflict; and these members gained more clout over time.

Throughout this period, Israel carried out various offensive activities (including several audacious, large-scale operations) and continued to invest money and human resources in defensive activities as well. These activities were carried out both routinely and as preventive and retaliatory measures. In hostage situations these governments continued the policies of their predecessors. Meaning that when a military solution was not viable, they were ready to make the needed concessions to the terrorists—as was shown by the “Jibril Deal” of May 20, 1985, concluded when Shimon Peres was prime minister. On that occasion, three Israeli soldiers held by the PFLP-GC since the Lebanon war were exchanged for 1,150 prisoners held in Israel. The number of terrorists who were released from prison, the severity of the crimes they had committed, and the government’s willingness to allow them to return to territories controlled by Israel, were all unparalleled.

Israeli President Shimon Peres will be the one to formally pardon Kuntar.

The Jabril deal had consequences. According to The Jerusalem Post:

Many of those 1,150 prisoners traded for Grof, Salem and Shai immediately took their places as militant Palestinian leaders, and at the end of 1987, they would be instrumental in launching the first intifada.

And there is one released terrorist in particular who as graduated to bigger things:

Jihad Alamrin – released as part of the Jibril deal in 1985:
* Founded the Al Aksa Brigades terror group in Gaza
* Planted explosives that killed IDF soldiers Cpl. Asher Zagori, Cpl. Moshe Peled, Cpl. Ron Lavi, Cpl. Matan Biderman and others.

Based on his resume, who knows what Kuntar may do.

Gil Ronen wrote back in October 2003:

Yoel Marcus, in a Haaretz Op-Ed piece from last week, recalls that in its previous wars, Israel had followed a policy of returning one enemy prisoner for every one Israeli prisoner returned.

"The turning point came in the Jibril deal in 1985, in which 1,150 terrorists, including the worst murderers, were exchanged for three soldiers," recalls Marcus. "After the fact, (then-Defense Minister) Yitzhak Rabin admitted that he was unable to withstand the pressure applied by the parents - especially that of Miriam Grof...The Jibril deal taught the Arabs that Israel would buckle under pressure, exposed its Achilles heel - its sensitivity to casualties - and in many observers' opinions ignited the first Intifadah.

But while it may be a blatant example of a policy of dealing with terrorists, the Jibril is not in fact the first example. According to the above-mentioned list on the Virtual Jewish Library, before the Jabril deal, not all exchanges were one-for-one, and the did involve terrorists:

Yom Kippur War

...On 4 April 1975, Egypt returned to Israel the bodies of 39 Israeli soldiers killed in action during the Yom Kippur War. In exchange, Israel returned 92 terrorists and security prisoners who had been held in Israeli prisons.

Operation "Litani"

On 5 April 1978, a truck carrying six Israeli soldiers and a civilian had mistakenly crossed Israeli lines (near the Tyre enclave), and encountered terrorists near Rashidia. Four soldiers were killed in this incident and one was taken prisoner. On 14 March 1979 he was returned in exchange for 76 terrorists.

Peace for Galilee War

On 3 September 1982, eight soldiers that were in a look out post in the area of Bhamdoun were captured by a terrorist group. Two of the soldiers were handed to Ahmad Jibril's PFLP, and the rest were held by the Fatah Organization. On 23 November 1983, the six soldiers held by the Fatah were returned in exchange for 4700 terrorists that were held in the Ansar detention facility in Lebanon and another 65 terrorists that were held in Israel.

On 23 November 1983, six IDF soldiers: Eliyahu Abutbul, Dani Gilboa, Rafi Hazan, Reuven Cohen, Avraham Motevaliski, and Avraham Kornfeld, who had been held prisoners by the PLO since 4.9.82 were released in exchange for 100 security prisoners and 4500 detainees from the Ansar detention facility.

The Jabril deal, like the Kuntar deal, was not conceived in a vacuum.

When Israel was involved in conventional wars with the Arab countries surrounding her, pure prisoner exchanges--not matter how unbalanced--were justifiable. Now that Israel is involved in a war with terrorists, that same policy is no longer viable and only serves to strengthen the resolve of those terrorists, while weakening that of Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Kuntar and Jibril Deal.

Newsweek: Having Kids Does Not Make You Happy

Survey says:

...In Daniel Gilbert's 2006 book "Stumbling on Happiness," the Harvard professor of psychology looks at several studies and concludes that marital satisfaction decreases dramatically after the birth of the first child—and increases only when the last child has left home. He also ascertains that parents are happier grocery shopping and even sleeping than spending time with their kids. Other data cited by 2008's "Gross National Happiness" author, Arthur C. Brooks, finds that parents are about 7 percentage points less likely to report being happy than the childless.

Considering that at no point does the article actually settle on a definition of "happiness," bouncing from not getting your house egged on Halloween to marital satisfaction, emotional well-being, and bliss.

At one point, the article contradicts itself. On the one hand it quotes surveys that prove that childless couples are happier than parents. Yet in reaction to a Newsweek poll that 50% of Americans report that adding children to their family increases happiness, the article demurs, "But which parent is willing to admit that the greatest gift life has to offer has in fact made his or her life less enjoyable?"

Not only does this retort claim that the responses of parents are unreliable--rendering all the surveys mentioned in the article unreliable, more importantly it raises the obvious question: which childless couples are willing to admit that lacking the greatest gift life has to offer has in fact made his or her life less enjoyable.

The article does address differences between raising families over the years and the increased expense and how that has changed perceptions.

In the end, the article concludes:

As for those of us with kids, well, the news isn't all bad. Parents still report feeling a greater sense of purpose and meaning in their lives than those who've never had kids.

Well, if we are not happy at least we have that...

Technorati Tag: Families.

Nachum Segal Interviews Malcolm Hoenlein 6/27/08

Last Friday:

Nachum interviewed Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who called in for the latest Weekly Update. Nachum and Malcolm began this week with a discussion about statements made by Israeli Foreign Minister Zipi Livni regarding actions in Gaza. They briefly spoke about the dirth of strong leadership in Israel and how that plays out in the Israeli political and social structure. They covered several other topics including: Senator Barack Obama's "mussar" letter to President Bush in regard to Hamas and Israel, the latest news regarding Gilad Shalit and the other Israeli MIAs, the importance of registering to vote, information about Iran's on-going nuclear program, and MUCH more. Click the link to listen.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

The 'Arab Street' Responds To The Kuntar Deal

So what is the Arab Street saying?:

39% of Arabs: Israel is weaker

A survey of six Arab Middle Eastern countries found that 39% of the Arabs think that Israel has become weaker, and that it is only a matter of time until it is defeated. The survey was conducted by Dr. Shibli Talahmi of Princeton University for the Saban Center in the Brookings Institute, and surveyed "urban and educated" people in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Jordan, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates.

99% of the Shiite Muslims who were surveyed agreed with the statement about Israel's weakness.

Annapolis backfired

The survey found that 50% of the Arabs do not believe Israel will ratify a peace treaty based on the June 4 1967 borders. 55% expect long tern violence in the region if the current "peace process" collapses. 86% see the "Israeli-Palestinian" conflict as the major problem in the region. A full 100% of the people surveyed in Jordan said this was so, as did 99% of those surveyed in Lebanon.

The survey showed that the Annapolis conference and the Bush administration's attempts to weaken Hamas failed and that Arab support for the terror group has increased over the last year.

Based on scientific polling techniques, it appears that consistently saying that you are willing to make painful concessions, releasing terrorists to bolster a weak PA leader, sitting idly by while your people are being bombed on a daily basis--followed by inconclusive military operations, and trading a murderer for dead Israeli soldiers makes others think you are weak.

Who knew!?

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Most Americans Oppose Taking Sides In Israel-Palestinian Conflict

This is according to a poll done by WorldPublicOpinion.org:

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 18 countries finds that in 14 of them people mostly say their government should not take sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just three countries favor taking the Palestinian side (Egypt, Iran, and Turkey) and one is divided (India). No country favors taking Israel's side, including the United States, where 71 percent favor taking neither side.

In the actual poll, here is the summary for results for the US (PDF):

Seven in ten Americans think the US should take neither side in the conflict. However the number who thinks the US should take Israel’s side is relatively high among the other nations polled—second only to India. Americans are divided over whether their own nation is doing its part and six in ten think that Israel is not. Their ratings of Palestinian efforts, and Arab countries’ efforts, are the lowest of all nations polled. Half oppose the Security Council offering to protect Arab countries in the event of a settlement—the highest resistance to the idea of any nation in the study.

• Seven in ten Americans (71%) think the United States should take neither side in the conflict. Twenty-one percent think the United States should take Israel’s side and 3 percent think it should take the Palestinians’ side.

• Three in five (59%) think Israel is not doing its part well in making efforts to resolve the conflict; 30 percent think it is. A larger 75 percent think the Palestinians are not doing their part well; only 15 percent think they are. Even more—78 percent—think the Arab countries are not doing their part well (12% think they are).

• Americans are sharply divided about the United States’ own performance: 46 percent think it is not playing its part well (15%, “not well at all”), while 44 percent think it is doing so—though only 7 percent say “very well.”

• Americans support the idea of the UN Security Council offering a peacekeeping force in the event of an agreement, 61 to 31 percent. A modest majority supports offering a commitment to protect Israel (53 to 37%); but only four in ten support offering a commitment to Arab countries (38% favor, 50% oppose).

Interestingly, although the survey does not cover what Israelis think, it does cover what the Palestinian Arabs think:

PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES

A majority of Palestinians are critical of the efforts of their Arab neighbors and the United States, as well as Israel, in their efforts to resolve the conflict. While Palestinians would like the UN to play a greater role in other ways, they show the highest levels of opposition to a UN commitment to protect Israel if it is attacked by its Arab neighbors.

• Eight in ten Palestinians think that Israel is not doing its part well in trying to resolve the conflict, and 61 percent say “not well at all.” Palestinian opinion is only slightly less critical of the United States; more than three-quarters (77%) say that the US is not doing its part well, with a majority (55%) saying “not well at all.” Palestinians are also critical of the efforts of their Arab neighbors: a majority (57%) says that they are not doing their part well, while one-third (33%) says that they are. On the other hand, three-quarters of Palestinians (75%) say that their own nation is doing its part well in its attempts to resolve the conflict, and 40 percent say “very well.”

• Palestinians support the United Nations taking a stronger role in the conflict in two out of the three proposed ways. Sixty-three percent support an offer to send a peacekeeping force in the event of an agreement, with 35 percent opposed. Seventy-five percent would support the Security Council offering a commitment to protect Arab countries if attacked by Israel, while 20 percent oppose. However, 85 percent would oppose such a commitment to protect Israel if it were attacked by its Arab neighbors.

I'm not sure how to reconcile the results of this poll with the US polls that show the percentage of those favoring Israel far greater than that favoring Palestinian Arabs.

I have no idea what biases WorldPublicOpinion.org has--a quick look via Google did not turn up anything and I did not recognize any of the people listed on the about page--though Steven Kull, the director of WorldPublicOpinion.org "plays a central role in the BBC World Service Poll of global opinion."

WorldPublicOpinion.org does not do the entire poll themselves, but outsources to pollsters in the individual countries covered in the survey. While that is understandable, and I assume the same methodology and questions were used, I don't know if that takes anything away from the reliability of the results. You can see the questions and raw data here. On Q32d-IP2d, how well are the Arab countries doing their part, the results from Egypt are not shown--does this indicate differences in the questions asked in different countries?

But regardless of how reliable the poll is, the fact is that polls create opinion as much as they measure it, and there are people who are going to read this and think that the whole thing should just be turned over to the UN.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Middle East.

Olmert: I Dare You To Cross This Line!

Looney Tunes:

Olmert: Israeli patience in face of truce violations limited

PM Olmert says Israel has shown some patience in face of truce violations, but will respond forcefully should ceasefire not be maintained

Technorati Tag: Olmert.

Just As Long As We Are All On The Same Page

US denies IAF likely to hit Iran in '08

The US State Department on Tuesday dismissed an ABC News report based on comments by an unnamed US defense official that Israel was likely to strike Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of 2008.

Pentagon Official Warns of Israeli Attack on Iran

Senior Pentagon officials are concerned that Israel could carry out an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of the year, an action that would have enormous security and economic repercussions for the United States and the rest of the world.

Actually, wouldn't one expect that Israel is keeping the US up to date on what it is planning on doing?

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Ehud Barak Meets Iraqi President In Greece

This is the part that gets the headline:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak set a historic precedent on Tuesday when he met and shook hands with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani at a worldwide socialist party conference near Athens.

Barak, who came to the 23rd congress of the Socialist International at the Lagonissi Grand Resort as Labor chairman, exchanged a handshake with the Iraqi leader and spoke with him briefly.

Just before the end of the article:

Barak told the conference that Gaza's Hamas rulers must release captured IDF soldier Gilad Schalit.

How does Barak say that with a straight face?

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Time For Israel To Change The Rules

Is it really changing the rules when only one side is playing by them anyway? Yoel Marcus of Haaretz writes:

In this ongoing war against the dark forces of fundamentalist Islam in our region, we must be prepared for the possibility of more kidnappings, more POWs and more cynical abuse of families by withholding news of their loved ones. Aware of the supreme value Israel attaches to human life, Hezbollah played a cannibalistic game with us, refusing to provide even the most basic information on the fate of soldiers who had fallen into their hands.

For two whole years, there was no sign of life from Regev and Goldwasser, yet they led us to believe they were alive. This tragic saga now coming to an end, which has driven the families and the whole country insane, cannot be allowed to repeat itself.

...This cruel horse-trading, exploiting the sensitivity of Israelis to the preciousness of human life, is a wake-up call to Israel to toughen its stance. It must refuse to take part in this sale of human beings. The current deal must be the last in the Israeli government's decades of bargaining to bring home its boys. Another question that begs to be asked is why the defense establishment saw fit to play by the heartless rules of Israel's enemies and pretend that Regev and Goldwasser were alive.

But Marcus suggests going further than just toughing out these sorts of demands:

We need to be tough when toughness is called for, and pragmatic when pragmatism is called for. If they kidnap your people, you kidnap theirs, and grab people so high up on the totem pole that it shocks them out of their minds. Let them be the ones on the begging end. It's time they played by our rules.

Actually, he is suggesting playing by their rules. In any case, Israel is no more likely to do this than some other ideas offered in years gone by. Charles Krauthammer suggested in August 2005 how Israel should take advantage of the Disengagement:

Israel should announce that henceforth any rocket launched from Palestinian territory will immediately trigger a mechanically automatic response in which five Israeli rockets will be fired back. There will be no human intervention in the loop. Every Palestinian rocket landing in Israel will instantly trigger sensors and preset counter-launchers. Any Palestinian terrorist firing up a rocket will know that he is triggering six: one Palestinian and five Israeli.

It is all very well to let our imaginations run wild with ideas--but let's be practical. And the first practical step that Israel needs to do is get Olmert out of office. The next step of course is to find someone suitable to replace him.

The latter step may be even more difficult than the first.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Is Olmert Just Responding To Public Opinion?

Benny Morris on the swap:

The prospective swap is clearly the desperate act of a weak prime minister and Cabinet driven by emotional public opinion, which is itself driven by a chorus of appeals from the relatives of the two soldiers. It is also only the last in a string of exchanges in which Israel has paid exorbitantly to get its boys back, dead or alive.

I've read how the Goldwasser and Regev families approached all of the ministers on the way to getting the Knesset to back Olmert on the exchange.

If Israelis truly want Olmert out of office and are against his policies in Gaza and his peace overtures with Syria, why are they not able to be equally emotional and persistent?

Or is the government merely allowing public opinion in this case to push them in the direction they already want to go?

After 2 years, why has Olmert now decided to pursue the exchange?

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and Goldwasser and Regev.