I originally started this post two days ago, as many of you know, on that day, Gilad Shalit was returned to his parents in Israel, five and a half years after his tank was ambushed within Israel by Hamas operatives, the rest of the crew killed and himself taken hostage. The issue has been a very heatedly debated subject, over the value of life. The deal struck released over a thousand Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, for Gilad. In negotiation history, Israel has released thousands of prisoners for less than fifty soldiers, a number of them dead.
The only proof anyone knew of that Gilad was alive were three letters (2006, February 2008, June 2008), an audio tape (2007), and a video filmed 14 September 2009, that Israel released 20 convicted female prisoners for. Some people feared that Hamas had already killed Gilad and would be exchanging his corpse for the prisoners as they had already done with Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev (2008), after initially claiming they were alive. I had intended to post what I had written below that night, after watching the reports from CNN and SKY news, including translations of speeches from Gaza and Egypt.
I have instead opted to wait a few days, to check my own emotions and writing. What will appear below is as I had written, with some adjustments for language. I confess no neutrality in the issue. I will admit upfront that what I saw not only frightened me, as I am within the state of Israel, but also sickened me. What I hope to convey, is what I witnessed and the senses I felt while being as accurate as possible to the details I observed.
~~~~~~~~
Today (October 18, 2011) marks the day that Gilad Shalit has been returned to his small home town in Israel, after more than five years in Hamas captivity. I imagine that the news should be on any and all news channels at least in passing, but I feel compelled to write at least an immediate reaction to the news as I've just seen it.
Watching the news and celebration was uplifting. Through my time in Israel, I have met many people who have expressed strong views on the issue. It is a tearing debate, but the majority of people I have met were willing to pay a high price to see him home safely. Many then, have been elated in the last few days after hearing that a deal had been reached. The news in Israel even showed an Arab village, whose name I cannot recall, in Israel flying signs that said, "Welcome Home, Gilad," proving that the issue is not just a religious one, but a national one. After Gilad arrived at his home, the news replayed the same short clip over and over, depicting a caravan of cars driving up to the home of Gilad's parents, the door opening and the young man getting out of the car and immediately heading inside his parents' home.
I expect that most of what I intend to write, has already been written on some website or some news column; however, I feel that it is important to reiterate some of the points I witnessed. There was a speech by the Prime Minister of Hamas, Gilad Shalit's father, a professional Palestinian spokesperson, and a gentleman who was a hostage of Lebanon for over a thousand days, who is currently working to build infrastructure in the Palestinian territory. I couldn't help but notice a common thread; two professional speakers, and a man introduced as a neutral (though I view his involvement as clear evidence to the contrary) witness taking stage opposite a father who, though he has been vocal in the process of the exchange, is clearly in a very emotional moment. The lack of response by the newscasters to the blatant partiality was unnerving, and the portrayal as actors as neutral is disturbing to me.
I wish to include the description of Gilad's condition, though I assume it has been mentioned numerous times before. He is reported in stable condition, though he appears to be in rather poor health. In the video of his interview in Egypt, pending his transfer to Israel, he appeared short of breath and emaciated, though there was no audio to indicate what was being said. It was revealed by medical examination that he is currently suffering from severe malnutrition, complications from lack of sunlight, and complications from shrapnel wounds that were not properly treated. While a prisoner, he was kept in isolation, without communication with his family or visits from any Humanitarian organization such as the Red Cross. I do not wish to invoke the humanitarian debate in Israel at the moment. I will not profess to be proficient in the issue; however, I do wish to pose the question that though people fiercely condemn Israel for its policies, the Red Cross among other Humanitarian agencies are allowed within their prisons and are allowed in the Palestinian Territory. Numerous times, different parties around the world had condemned Hamas for is kidnapping, and urged it to release the soldier, but nothing s ever done and I hate to assume, all but forgotten within days of the condemnation. Who is to say what was happening in those five years without any international care?
After returning home, and a few hours of time with his son, Gilad's father gave an address before a large crowd of people, indicating his son was happy to be home. That his whole family was grateful to the government to have their son back, and that he is aware at the cost the Israeli government paid. His son returned for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners, many reportedly convicted of murder. His father reported that as much as his son would like to thank everyone who came to support him, he is unable. His father said that Gilad did not say much after he arrived home. They sat for a family dinner, and they listened, though he barely spoke. It was said that he will require rehabilitation, but the whole family hopes to return to a normal life. He thanked everyone expressed his gratitude for so much support, he then wished to repeat himself in English as his first address had been in Hebrew. He clearly was not as comfortable using English, although, it seems that he thought it important enough that people hear him say what he wanted, as opposed to what a translator put in his mouth.
There is also a scene of celebration in Gaza. Flags flying, dancing, and cheering. It's a celebration for the return of their prisoners. The language; however, is extremely different from that in Israel, and I'll admit from the outset that I do not understand what people, removed from the events, imagine when they hear the speech. The Prime Minister of Hamas called it a grand achievement, and the reporter indicates from the outset that among the participants at the celebration, people were people chanting "we want another Gilad Shalit."
The BBC analyst speculated that Hamas was attempting to garner more support, by finally sealing a deal, they hoped to counter Mahmoud Abbas' popularity. The prices in Gaza, he reported, have been on the increase for gas, cigarettes and taxes. It important to note that here; because, I believe that most people feel that Gaza and the West Bank are like large Hoovervilles, shanty towns without any indication of the twenty-first century. To the contrary, though I cannot speak to the conditions, there is a Middle Eastern sense of civilization. There are roads, and cities with municipalities and even a mall. Any hope of seeing the conditions for myself, and to be able to give a firsthand account, as well as visiting Egypt, have been dashed. At the rally, the Prime Minister of Hamas was thanking the prisoners for their contributions to the Palestinian people. He called it a day for God. That He had granted them victory. That they could defeat the enemy as long as they pleased God. He advocated for a continuation of the 'struggle', and began politicking by being sure to indicate that Hamas not only had Hamas prisoners released, but men and women of all groups including the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic Jihad. There was an issue with understanding all his rhetoric as the translator froze a number of times as the Prime Minister continued speaking, only to resume at the start of the next sentence. The whole speech was in Arabic, and at the time there was no English transcription.
After him, the news put on a spokesperson for the Palestinians who seemed to be educated in the United States. The woman criticized the deal as flawed. Saying 'there could be no fair agreement so long as Palestine was occupied.' She did not answer any of the questions actually posed to her by the news anchor, but instead continued with what seemed a pre-rehearsed verbal attack on Israel, calling on the state to show true courage and end the siege of Gaza, and to live as neighbors instead of occupiers. I dislike using such examples; however, I feel that there is a key component missing in her argument. I understand that there is a feverish desire for a Palestinian state, and I support two states living in cohesion. I think both countries could benefit dramatically from such a world; however, what sort of neighbor endorses rockets being shot at its neighbor, or conduct operations of abduction and blatant attacks on civilian targets? Let me ask what would happen if the Mexico shot rockets into the United States and kidnapped US soldiers and hid them, without word to family or officials, and no visits by any international agency, or if Germany decided to launch rockets at France, or any other modern example. I would be surprised if there was not only condemnation for the indiscriminate acts of terror, but a military response. And to counter critiques of Israel using excessive force, I am sure that a 'disproportionate' use of force would be used by any ground force to ensure the safety of the soldiers of the reactionary military. It is true that in response, one could argue that Israel has not been the best neighbor either. It has a blockade in place, and has invaded the territories. I do not wish to provide a single view point; however, I view the rhetoric of the spokeswoman as specifically designed to malign the image of Israel while failing to address the issue of the present moment, where Hamas operatives kidnapped a soldier from his soil, and held in conditions that break the Third Geneva Convention (Put into effect in 1950) which states, among other things that Prisoners are to be treated with dignity, given the medical treatment they require and that the Red Cross or other international humanitarian agencies may visit the prisoner (Specifically Articles 13, 15). Given the reason she is on the air, how can she claim that Hamas is attempting to be a good neighbor?
Terry Waite was posed a few questions next. He is a religious man who, earlier in his life, had negotiated several hostage releases in the 1980's. In 1987 he was sent to Lebanon to negotiate with a group of captors who broke the truce of his neutrality, and took him hostage. It was not until 1991 that he was released. The news wanted to speak with him to get an opinion of what the newly freed men would be feeling. He asserted that both Gilad Shalit and the Palestinian prisoners would experience the same reaction. From his personal experience, he said that they would experience joy, and they would first return home to their families and friends who they had not seen in some time. While that held true for some I am sure, reportedly at least a hundred of the released prisoners had gone to the rally. It seemed to make his expert opinion null, as clearly he was speaking without watching what was happening. The underscore of his bias as an aid worker building infrastructure in Palestine, claiming objectivity, was not appreciated.
The final speech the news cut to was in Egypt. The speaker called the prisoners the pride of Palestine. Saying, "You are the honor of Palestine." He praised those who continued the struggle, promising them that the land was waiting for them, calling to them, and that its heart pained for them. He lamented for the ten prisoners who, as a part of the bargain, were to be exiled. "There is no replacement for your home land... There is no alternative to Palestine." He said that Egypt had spent and sacrificed much in the cause for Palestine, but it was Israel that should pay out of her land. He gloated that Hamas had shown its own abilities. Hiding Gilad in Gaza, he claimed, was a terrific success. And when the Zionist army invaded Gaza, they were forced to retreat without Gilad. While I wish that in operation Cast Lead, the military could have retrieved Gilad alive, I firmly believe that had the military approached within close proximity to where he was held, Gilad's captors would have undoubtedly executed him, as they had Nachshon Wachsman. I also wish to express that the intention of the operation was not directed at bringing Gilad home. The operation was launched in response to the Kassam rockets being fired at Israeli ties from Gaza, and was conducted by land forces due to the strong protests of Israeli air power hitting the wrong targets and being emotionlessly thousands of feet away.
Instead they sent in ground forces, which posed a greater risk to Israeli lives, in an attempt to ensure that Palestinian civilian casualties were kept to an minimum. I am certainly not naive enough to say that no civilians were killed, and their loss is tragic; however, I would not trust the numbers of either side as they both have something to win or lose by the numbers. It is also, I'd argue, easy to turn a civilian in clothes into a Hamas gunman, or vice versa, with minimal change. That is to say, at one moment, he is a civilian, but add a gun to his hands and he becomes a terrorist/freedom fighter. The United States is facing the same difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan where, again, the militants do not abide by the Geneva convention that soldiers are to wear a uniform, or "that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance." (Third Geneva Convention, Article 4.1.2)
I do not want to take this too far, as I am not as well versed in either the agreement that was reached, nor do I intend to be bogged down in a discussion of the conflict at the moment. I just wanted to put down my thoughts on the issue for the benefit of anyone who has not seen the news. It is of course exciting, and many people have expressed so much hope, that a peaceful outcome may be closer. I am skeptical; however, due to the language that continues to emanate from the Arab states. I fear for the continuation of peace accords, including the safety of Israeli soldiers who, after this exchange, are again targets for kidnappings, and for the possibility of peace in the near future.
~~~~~~
I wish to include here, after checking the information and verifying statements, that the prisoner exchange system is a horrific and deadly cycle. I appreciate that Israel is willing to make a hard decision to retrieve her sons, alive and in some cases dead. I doubt sincerely that the United States, or many nations for that matter, would be willing to release known terrorists for singular soldiers. Would you allow the United States to release the members of the Islamic Jihad who blew up the US Embassy in Lebanon (1983), the bombing in Spain (1985), or Germany (1986), planners who engineered the attack on the USS Cole (2000), or a myriad of other (more recent) terror suspects for one or two servicemen?
To uncover the reception of known terrorists and murderers is quite sickening. For example, this release which included numerous murderers hailed them as heroes, or Samir Kuntar who was being traded for Ehud Gold Wasser and Eldad Regev, received a hero's welcome in Lebanon, where they even dedicated a national holiday, for a man who killed a family including a four year old girl. To say the least, it is hard to accept that things like this happen. And therefore, I think it is all the more important to remember and to observe what is happening.
I imagine that, though they are a clear threat to security, with thousands of willing individuals to attack both nations, the addition those released is less than one might expect. Rather, it is the lives of the soldiers we can still save that should matter. I hope what I have written here may add some dimension to peoples understandings who may have only glanced the headlines, and an insight into my own point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment