Posts
Gilad Shalit and the Politics of Weeping
By nathalie / March 20, 2009
A Facebook search for ‘Gilad Shalit’, the 21-year-old Israeli conscript who was captured by Palestinian militants nearly three years ago, brings up 240 results. ‘Bring Gilad Shalit Home!!!!!!! (NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!)’ demands one group. ‘Gilad Shalit is still alive!’ insists another. On the two-year anniversary of his kidnapping, nearly 85,000 Facebook users pledged to change their status to ‘is waiting for Gilad Shalit for 2 years!!!’
Last Sunday, Shalit’s family set up a protest tent outside the outgoing Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert’s residence in Jerusalem, hoping their manifestation would put pressure on the government to reach a deal with Hamas over their son’s release before the government shift later this month. Yesterday, on the thousandth day of his capture, it became clear that the latest prisoner-swap negotiations for Shalit’s release had failed.
Just 19 years old and fresh out of school when he was kidnapped in June 2006, Corporal Shalit cut a scrawny figure in his baggy army uniform. In Israel, his image became ubiquitous and is now firmly imprinted in the national consciousness. Much like Ron Arad, the air force navigator who has been missing in action since 1986, became the human face of the conflict with Lebanon for Israelis, Shalit has come to embody a great deal. He is a symbol for Israeli humanitarianism, Palestinian barbarism, military weakness, and political impotence – depending on who you ask.
The fallouts over the latest stalemate in the Egyptian-brokered prisoner-swap negotiations between Hamas and Israel have laid bare some fractures in Israeli society. It is widely seen as the outgoing government’s latest – and last – failure. Many argue that Olmert’s inability to secure a deal for Shalit’s release will make the job harder for future negotiators. However, it is not simply Israeli officials’ bartering and diplomatic skills that have been found wanting in this process – so too has Israel’s political confidence. And it is questionable whether Olmert’s successors have any more of it than he does.
From Israel’s side, the objective of the negotiations is ostensibly to free Shalit, but of course much more is on the table here. Israel is also negotiating the extent to which it will appear soft on Palestinian militants, how well it respects the nation’s cherished ethos of ‘never leaving a soldier behind,’ and the feelings of the parents who offer their children to the service of the state vs the feelings of those who have lost relatives in violent attacks perpetrated by some of the prisoners Hamas is demanding in exchange for Shalit.
Olmert’s biggest legacy (in addition to his involvement in a series of corruption scandals) will be that of the Second Lebanon War of 2006: a conflict that turned sour after initial widespread national support for the government’s fight against Hezbollah turned into widespread national disappointment. That war was triggered by the abduction of two soldiers, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, on the Israeli side of the Lebanese border less than a month after Shalit had been kidnapped during an attack on an Israeli army outpost near the Gaza-Israel-Egypt border.
In the eyes of the Israeli public, Olmert’s chances of ‘making good’ on the mistakes of the Second Lebanon War hinged, to a large extent, on striking a successful deal to free Shalit. While Goldwasser and Regev’s bodies were returned to Israel last year, in exchange for Israel handing over the remains of 199 Lebanese fighters and freeing five militants, Shalit is presumed to be alive and is still used as a pawn in prisoner-exchange barters. These barters have now come to a desperate gridlock, as Israel refused this week to agree to Hamas’s demand that it be allowed to select 450 prisoners for release in exchange for Shalit.
The Shalit family’s protest tent has become the scene of intense debate and emotion. It has turned into something of a pilgrimage destination for Israelis wishing to show their support for the soldier’s distressed family, and to express their frustration with an impotent Israeli government and their disgust with Shalit’s captors.
Yesterday, a group of Druze, Bedouins and Muslims, accompanied by Likud Knesset member Ayoob Kara, arrived at the Shalit family’s protest tent to express support for a deal securing Shalit’s release. At the site, visitors scribble messages on post-it notes and attach them to a wall. Unlike the personal prayer notes that visitors to Jerusalem’s kotel roll up and stick into the cracks of the wailing wall, the notes for Shalit are displayed openly for passers-by to read. The inside of the protest tent is adorned with posters and photographs of Shalit and slogans demanding he be brought home. One artist has donated a painting of Shalit in a soldier’s uniform and handcuffs. On a notice board, printed figures show the number of days Shalit has been missing in action.
But not everyone visiting the site is keen on the idea of getting Shalit back at any price. On Monday, families of fallen soldiers and victims of Palestinian violence set up a small tent of their own, next to the Shalit family’s tent, and held a silent protest against prisoner swaps. Shvuel Schijeveschuurder, who lost his parents and three siblings in a suicide bombing in Jerusalem in 2001, told Haaretz: ‘I feel betrayed by the State of Israel and the court system.’ He vowed that if anyone involved in the attack that killed his family members were to be released, he would chase them down himself, ‘like [Simon] Wiesenthal tracked down the Nazis’.
The mother of a soldier killed in the Second Lebanon War visited the Shalit family to express her empathy, but told Haaretz she opposes prisoner exchanges. Admitting she would have done what the Shalit family is doing were she in a similar situation, she still added: ‘I wouldn’t want the government to listen to me. A government shouldn’t operate based on the weeping of mothers.’ During the Second Lebanon War, her son had told her that he would not want anyone released in exchange for him if he was kidnapped. ‘I agree with him 100 per cent’, the mother said. ‘Do what is good for the State of Israel – don’t operate based on tears.’
Perhaps in an attempt to prove why it was justified in drawing certain ‘red lines’ in the prisoner-swap negotiations, the Israeli government took the unusual step of publishing the names of some of the Palestinian prisoners that Hamas has demanded in exchange for Shalit. In total, Israel offered to release 325 prisoners, with the condition that 144 of them be sent to the Gaza Strip or abroad. The names of those Palestinians that Israel refused to release were published alongside the names of 10 of the prisoners it agreed to free with the condition of deportation.
The decision to publish these names looks like an effort on the part of Israeli political leaders to find sympathy amongst the public for their moral and political quandaries. In effect, the government is playing the feelings of bereaved relatives of the victims of Palestinian violence against the feelings of bereaved parents of dead Israeli soldiers, failing utterly, as the mother of that dead soldier urged, to avoid ‘operating on the basis of tears’.
In a press conference Olmert insisted that Israel ‘is not a defeated nation’, that it remains willing to negotiate over Shalit’s return but that it will not cross the ‘red lines’ set out in Cairo this week. Yet these red lines seem rather arbitrary. Israel is willing to release 350 prisoners, but apparently releasing 450 is ‘too high a price to pay’ and would unduly compromise Israel’s security.
The debate about how many Palestinian prisoners Shalit’s safe return home is worth masks some serious political failings. As Akiva Eldar points out in Haaretz, instead of admitting to their own failure in negotiating Shalit’s release over the past three years, Olmert and his partners have blamed everyone else – ‘the lobby that pressures, the ministers that identified with them, the media that reported, and especially the price-gougers in Hamas. The excuses and claims being scattered by government spokespeople, the heads of the Shin Bet security service and the Mossad and emissary Ofer Dekel, reveal their failure in managing this crisis.’
For the Israeli public, the Shalit negotiations are not simply a political management issue. Instead, it appears that this single soldier has become a powerful symbol, a conduit for expressing people’s hopes and frustrations. As such, the Shalit debacle has contributed to recasting the conflict with the Palestinians in emotive and un-nuanced terms.
For instance, many claim that Israel’s willingness to swap soldiers – dead or alive – for Palestinian prisoners who have been involved in killing Israels is powerful proof of the Israeli people’s solidarity and their respect for the sanctity of life. This is widely contrasted with Hamas’s occasional suicide-bombing tactics and their supposed use of ‘human shields’ in the Gaza Strip. In this way, the conflict is lazily turned into a struggle between good and evil, between humanitarians and barbarians.
The Shalit family’s protest tent has over the past week provided a physical space for Israelis’ frustrations; it has become a site for emotional outlet, a place where one can try to redefine Israel’s purpose, whether it is to ‘hold the line’ or ‘show compassion’. Here, the clash between the old Israel and the new Israel, between an Israel that refused to negotiate with ‘terrorists’ and fiercely protected its sovereignty and an Israel that makes sacrifices in the name of existential security, is played out.
As for Olmert and his partners, publishing the names of prisoners whose release had been on the negotiating table in Cairo was a powerful show of weakness, a demonstration that they are pandering to emotionalism. Apparently they believe that the way to people’s hearts and minds is through their tear canals – and it is questionable whether the new regime, even if it is more skilled, will be able to fix the broader crisis of legitimacy underpinning the three-year Shalit debacle.
Nathalie Rothschild is commissioning editor of spiked.
POST A COMMENT
"If we are to judge by opinion polls, statements by members of the public, journalists, politicians and others, the majority of Israelis truly want to resolve this conflict and truly believe that they are acting in self-defense."
And if we are to judge by the behavior of successive Israeli governments, the relentless expansion of settlement activity and concomitant restrictions upon the lives of the Palestinian citizens of Israel suggest that Israel’s plan is not a peace that any would recognize as just.
I have no doubt that a large (but shrinking) percentage of Israeli citizens are honestly looking for a just and equitable solution. But even a cursory examination of history leads to the ineluctable conclusion that the Israeli government, whether in its Likud or Labor incarnation, has never accepted the idea of a viable Palestinian state alongside itself.
"Previously, you depicted the present Israeli President, Shimon Peres, as explicitly, openly and vociferously opposing the existence of a Palestinian State. You did this without taking into account every single public statement he has made since he began the negotiating with the Palestinians himself,illegally conducting secret negotiatinos with them without government authority."
Well, what I did was quote the old faker quite precisely, so I’d say he depicted himself as opposing a state. You’ll excuse me if don’t pay too much attention to his public statements in apparent support of Palestinian hopes for a state; insofar as they are contradicted by his policies (authorship of the 1996 Qana massacre (denounced by Amnesty, HRW, the UN et al), insane opposition to World Court’s decision re illegality of apartheid fence, lack of meaningful opposition to settlements, embrace of the Yigal Allon plan, etc), they are PR, pure and simple.
"Why on earth would Israelis regard a truce offered by Hamas as anything but a temporary measure?"
Why on earth is a temporary measure to stop mutual carnage worse than no measure to do so?
"As an side, I should point out that ‘Jerusalem’ is the present capital of the Israeli state, whether you like it or not. Using "Tel-Aviv" instead is just putting your head in the sand."
Acknowledging the legitimacy of a land grab is politically foolish.
"Do you recall its treaties with Egypt and Jordan?"
If you try hard and focus all your attention, you may recall that we were talking about Palestine. I know that Zionists like nothing better than redirecting specific conversations about Israel’s behavior towards a specific Arab population to the Arab world at large, but I’ll have none of it. Perhaps a second cup of coffee, then reread my comment-this may help your staying on point.
Now, how about directing your efforts to the question of a swap, which you’ll remember was the issue at hand.
"I think the folks in charge are operating from sheer cynicism, covering
their expansionist ambitions with the rhetoric of self-defense."
A critical mistake. If we are to judge by opinion polls, statements by members of the public, journalists, politicians and others, the majority of Israelis truly want to resolve this conflict and truly believe that they are acting in self-defense. They elect their leaders accordingly and hold them accountable for their actions based on how consistent they are with their own world views.
It is irresponsible of you to comment on Israeli politics when you clearly know very little about that topic. Previously, you depicted the present Israeli President, Shimon Peres, as explicitly, openly and vociferously opposing the existence of a Palestinian State. You did this without taking into account every single public statement he has made since he began the negotiating with the Palestinians himself, illegally conducting secret negotiatinos with them without government authority. I suggest you read some history books before you deign to assess Israeli politicians. Also consider reading their autobiographies and biographies. At the very least you will have gained an understanding of how they thought and to some extent how the Israeli public thinks.
"Whenever a truce is requested, whenever peace threatens to break out, we may count on Tel Aviv to stir the pot."
Why on earth would Israelis regard a truce offered by Hamas as
anything but a temporary measure? Hamas’ core aim is to destroy Israel.
It has repeatedly stated that any truce would be temporary. It has repeatedly stated it will never recognise the state of Israel. And not coincidentally, its members think Jews are intrinsically evil
and that everything they do is part of a conspiracy to control the world. Notice when Israelis withdrew 8,000 men, women and children from Gaza. How did Hamas react? Why, clearly, all of the moaning and fussing was a conspiracy. In reality, all those settlers supported Sharon and were kicking up a fuss to provoke international sympathy. How can you possibly believe Hamas wants anything other than the destruction of the Israeli state?
As an side, I should point out that ‘Jerusalem’ is the present capital of the Israeli state, whether you like it or not. Using "Tel-Aviv" instead is just putting your head in the sand.
Secondly, I would point out that on two previous occasions Jerusalem has somehow failed to ‘stir the pot’ quite enough. Do you recall its treaties with Egypt and Jordan? But of course those cynical Israelis were probably just too incompetent to do anything but come to a peace agreement, right?
"Israel is fighting a wat against irregular forces (terrorists) who only a fool would agree to reason with and expect decency from. The above lines are foolishness."
But what is the harm in agreeing to the swap Hamas proposed? Why dismiss it out of hand? Agree to set the women and children free for Shalit’s release; if Hamas reneges or otherwise acts indecently, then Israel reneges and no one is worse off than the status quo ante. If Hamas miraculously comes through (and, even more miraculously, Israel keeps its word), everyone’s a bit happier.
I dislike Hamas a little less than you do, but I still dislike them. But who says you negotiate only with your pals? I see your belligerence and closed-mindedness as exactly representative of the sort of provocation Israel specializes in; it has become a master of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Whenever a truce is requested, whenever peace threatens to break out, we may count on Tel Aviv to stir the pot.
The advantage you, Alcove, have over Israel’s leaders is that I think you sincerely believe the rationales you propose for your mistaken convictions, while I think the folks in charge are operating from sheer cynicism, covering their expansionist ambitions with the rhetoric of self-defense.
So what do you think? Do you want to keep those women and kids in prison more than you want to see Shalit returned to his family?
"Shortly after the Shalit incident, Hamas offered (all right, demanded) a deal in which he would be returned to Israel if the Israelis would release from prison all female and minor Palestinian prisoners. The Israeli response, of course, was to instigate raids on Gaza "
"killing of further innocent persons was no way to often (soften?) the hearts of Gaza militants"
Israel is fighting a wat against irregular forces (terrorists) who only a fool would agree to reason with and expect decency from. The above lines are foolishness.
I’d like to bring into the discussion a few facts that are not mentioned in either the article or the thread. But first, let me state unequivocally that any soldier or civilian who is abducted and who is not granted basic human rights represents a tragedy. If it were in my power (as it is in the Israeli government’s) I would see to it that Shalit was returned to his home on the instant. This, of course, assumes that he is still alive, a point on which we can only speculate.
First fact: Just one day before Shalit’s capture in June 2006, Israeli forces crossed into Gaza and kidnapped a Palestinian doctor and his brother. Israel has subsequently kidnapped dozens of Hamas members, including cabinet ministers, mayors and legislators, all of whom languish in Israeli prisons today. When a militant group takes an armed soldier prisoner, it is quite reasonable to call that action a "capture." When an army unit takes civilians prisoners, I believe that "kidnap" is the appropriate word. I assert, although I cannot prove it, that the Shalit capture was executed in retaliation for the IDF kidnappings.
Second fact: Israel holds thousands of Palestinians in prisons, the vast majority of whom have never been charged with a crime, let alone been indicted or convicted in a court of law. We do not know the names of these people, although Shalit’s name is a worldwide icon.
Third fact: Shortly after the Shalit incident, Hamas offered (all right, demanded) a deal in which he would be returned to Israel if the Israelis would release from prison all female and minor Palestinian prisoners. The Israeli response, of course, was to instigate raids on Gaza in which perhaps a hundred people were killed. I propose that a rational response by any government would have been to sit down at a negotiating table and find out what kind of agreement could be struck; killing of further innocent persons was no way to often the hearts of Gaza militants.
In short, I submit that the Israeli government, while not directly responsible for his capture, at the least contributed to his condition. Worse, they threw away good opportunities for his release. Now, of course, Hamas attitudes have understandably hardened; the response of much of the public is to castigate Hamas and persist in the insane view that Shalit’s capture was a casus belli.
"Politics of Weeping"
The title of this piece is a sign of the author’s leftist pc point of view.
Whenever you hear the cliche phrase "the Politics of…" you know you are reading a writer with an original point of view.
Nathalie Rothschild is a good example of the shabby moral relativism that is a sickness in today’s liberal mind set. Her accusation points only to the Israeli "regime" and its "debacle." Narry a word about the kidnappers of this soldier who is almost certainly tortured and dead. If he isn’t allowed a visit by the Red Cross I will assume the worst because his captures do not deserve the benefit of the doubt that Rothschild ‘s bovine stupidity allows them. They kidnap soldiers and cruely dangle the hope of a safe return so the Rothchild’s of the world can tear at the Israeli psyche in a way that Hamas could never do.
Notice the very generous asides she gives to fascistic cavemen:
"Hamas’s occasional suicide-bombing tactics and their supposed use of ‘human shields’ in the Gaza Strip…. the conflict is lazily turned into a struggle between good and evil, between humanitarians and barbarians".
Occasional suicide-bombing not for lack of trying but to tireless and expensive Israeli security measures like the separation fence and there is abundance of proof of Hama’s use of human shields. The only thing lazy is her mental capacity to clearly see it is absolutely a struggle between good and evil and between humanitarians and barbarians.
As Orwell reminded the useful idiots of his day, "Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist"
Ms. Rothschild is doing just that by doing for Hamas what it cannot do for itself. Pouring kosher salt on this open wound in the service of Islamofascists in the guise of caring about the agony of Israeli families. For shame.
????? ??????
From the Jewish Law Commentary – "International Jew" by Adam Jessel, commenting on the work of Danny Eisen
Throughout their history, Jews have always held that the value of a life cannot be defined by political considerations. The Talmud places tremendous emphasis on the obligation to redeem captives, and Jews have always gone to extraordinary lengths to do so. Today, says Eisen, with the yawning divisions – religious, political, ideological – in the Jewish people, the sense of responsibility to Jewish captives may be one of the last fundamental principles capable of uniting all Jews.
350 prisoners…450 prisoners…Let’s do what is necessary. Shalit is certainly worth more than all of them.
the failure of the olmert government to trade for the return of gilad shalit is understandable given the extensive demands that hamas is making. but what the article does not address is the failure of israel and the world community to secure visits by the red cross or some other international organization to ensure that shalit is still alive and not being mistreated. visits to a prisoner of war are ensured by international law and hamas is refusing to abide by that law. the countless articles excoriating israel for its conduct of the war on gaza omit the shalit issue and its emotional pull on the israeli public and omit any mention of the refusal of hamas to allow red cross visitors. as it becomes clear that hamas will not free shalit, it is time for the international community and others to stand up for shalit’s rights to a visit.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!