Welcome home

The sight of dozens of hot air balloons taking to the sky near Gideon’s Spring early on Tuesday morning could have been interpreted as a good omen.

Indeed, a few hours later Gilad Shalit was on his way home after more than five years in captivity. However, the aerial display was simply a happy coincidence. The hot air balloon festival was part of the Sukkot celebrations organised by the Gilboa.Regional Council.

The IDF, ever innovative in choosing appropriate names for our wars, campaigns and other events, decided to call Tuesday’s logistically complicated prisoner exchange “Operation Beit Hashoeva.” The reference of course is to the drawing of water for the libation ceremony that took place in the Temple during Sukkot. At that time, when most of our ancestors were farmers, the libation ceremony, a supplication for sufficient rain, was the best insurance policy available. Nowadays, it seems we place more trust in the national water carrier, water conservation systems, modern irrigation methods and desalination plants. All these modern adjuncts to heaven-sent precipitation are very efficient, but give no cause for celebration.

By all accounts the Temple libation ceremony referred to as Simchat Beit Haoshoeva was a joyous occasion. Our sages claimed that, “He who has not seen the rejoicing at the place where the water was drawn, has never seen rejoicing in his life.”

I’m told that Simchat Beit Haoshoeva celebrations, especially among Hassidic communities in Jerusalem and Bnei Brak are also joyous occasions.

Just the same, on Tuesday the celebration that accompanied Gilad Shalit’s homecoming was “the only show in town.”

The unprecedented elation felt everywhere is unique and in no way comparable to the jubilant receptions held in Gaza and Ramallah for the first batch of Palestinian terrorists released in exchange for Gilad.

Some observers have attributed the success of the campaign to free Gilad to the Shalit family, its many supporters, the empathy of the news-media and to the changing circumstances of Hamas and the Egyptian interim government. Furthermore, Prime Minister Netanyahu, beleaguered by the social protest campaign, a threatened mass resignation of doctors in the public medical service as well as the rise of charismatic labour party leader Shelly Yachimovitch, was in dire need of something to improve his public image.

It’s true to say that everyone in this country wanted Gilad Shalit to return home safe and sound. Despite the very lopsided deal - 1,027 terrorists in exchange for one Israeli soldier, 80% of Israelis ( according to a poll conducted by the daily Yediot Ahronot) thought it was the right thing to do.

In an attempt to explain the anomalous nature of the exchange deal to its readers the Washington Post published an article claiming that the efforts made to bring about Gilad Shalit’s release, “Owed much to a public relations campaign that turned the kidnapped soldier into an icon, portraying him as the nation’s son, with bumper stickers, billboards and TV ads," …. "PR firms and communications experts working for Shalit’s parents drove a sophisticated campaign that also enlisted celebrities, musicians and an army of thousands of volunteers.

The emotional bedrock on which the campaign grew: A national ethos of solidarity in Israel, an 'all for one and one for all' mentality necessary in a country with compulsory military service for Jewish citizens, helped the campaign encourage activism on such a large scale."

I think that the turning point in the campaign occurred in June last year when the Shalits embarked on a 12-day march from their home in Mitzpe Hila to Jerusalem. Tens of thousands joined them along the way. They then moved into the protest tent across the road from the prime minister’s office and vowed to spend their days there until their son returned home.

Throughout the campaign there was opposition to a prisoner exchange involving the release of large numbers of Palestinian terrorists.

Over the last 30 years, Israel has released about 7,000 Palestinian prisoners in order to free 19 Israelis and retrieve the bodies of eight others.

Perhaps the guidelines for the current prisoner exchange were formulated in 1985 when the Israeli government released 1,150 prisoners in exchange for three Israeli soldiers captured in Lebanon. Then-Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin defended the deal. "When no military option exists," he said, "there is no choice but to enter negotiations and pay a price."

Some of the people who opposed the high price paid for Gilad’s release claim that the Israeli government was coerced by unrelenting public pressure to make concessions. They argue that it was the high profile campaign that convinced Hamas to hold out for a better exchange rate

Public opinion expert Dr. Yehuda Ben Meir director of the Public Opinion and National Security Project at the Institute for National Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University believes the Shalit campaign had a negative aspect..

In an article published in Haaretz he wrote, “The Israeli government was not swayed by public pressure for a deal at any price, and did in the end manage to wring some crucial concessions from Hamas.”

“It is possible,” he concluded, “that without all the public protest, demonstrations and irresponsible behaviour by the media over the years — which only strengthened Hamas’s mistaken feeling that Israel would surrender to all its demands — Gilad Shalit would have been home a long time ago and for a much lower price.”

Undoubtedly Dr. Ben Meir is an expert, however he hasn’t convinced me. I suspect his expert opinion is to some extent influenced by his political background and former affiliation to the National Religious Party

A number of security and defence experts have related to the risk involved in the release of so many convicted terrorists. The release in two stages helps the surveillance of these potentially dangerous people. In addition the security fence, surveillance conducted by both the Palestinian and Israeli security forces will make it difficult for any of the unrepentant former prisoners to engage in terrorist activity. Technological means too aid in the surveillance work. We are living in age of tell-tale electronic monitoring which helps pinpoint where the person under surveillance is. Add to this the time-tested method of employing local informants who are willing to sell their own grandmothers if need be.

The dilemma we faced deciding whether to pay an exorbitant price for the release of one prisoner is not new. The ethical injunction to redeem hostages goes back to the time when Jewish communities were held ransom by both knaves and noblemen to redeem Jewish captives. However, our sages did place a limit on the price to be paid. They fixed the limit in instances when paying the ransom was beyond the community’s means and would lead to further extortion.

The vast majority of Israel’s citizens thought paying the price for Gilad was morally right

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights spokesman Rupert Colville said "It was with a sense of great relief that we have received news of the agreement to exchange prisoners. We do however have concerns regarding reports that hundreds of Palestinian prisoners from the West Bank may be released to the Gaza Strip or abroad. If in some cases this has been without the free and informed consent of the concerned individuals, this may constitute forced transfer or deportation under international law," he added. "We are not sure to what extent they consented to this."

The International Committee of the Red Cross also admonished us
"Returning people to places other than their habitual places of residence is in contradiction to international humanitarian law.”
I wonder if they realise that the “individuals” they are talking about are terrorists not “white-frocked choir boys.”

Israelis opposing the prisoner exchange deal have pointed out that other countries do not deal with terrorists. They claim we should follow their example.

I don’t know how many US citizens following the campaign to release Gilad Shalit know that US Serviceman Bowe Bergdahl has been held in captivity by the Taliban in Afghanistan for the past two years. I doubt if many Americans have heard of Iraqi American United States Army linguist Staff Sergeant Ahmed Kousay Altaie who was captured five years ago in Baghdad and is still waiting to be released.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said he expected the Israeli-Palestinian prisoner exchange would boost prospects for the wider peace process.

Few people here share his optimism.

Have a good weekend.

Beni 21^st of October, 2011.