In other words, Israel is hoping to force Hamas to the negotiating table with the same or increased demands for the release of terrorists with blood on their hands so that Israel can release them and gain Shalit’s release.

However Nadav Shragai notes that releasing terrorists doesn’t always build confidence the way Israel would like.

According to an informal estimate by Israeli security bodies, about 50 percent of the terrorists freed for any reason whatsoever returned to the path of terror, either as perpetrator, planner, or accomplice. In the terror acts committed by these freed terrorists, hundreds of Israelis were murdered, and thousands were wounded.

Israel freed 400 Palestinian prisoners and five other prisoners in return for Elhanan Tannenbaum, who was held captive by Hizbullah, and for the bodies of three soldiers kidnapped on Mount Dov. According to Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee Chairman Tzahi Hanegbi, from the date of the deal on January 29, 2004, until April 17, 2007, those freed in the deal had murdered 35 Israelis.

Something to keep in mind when recalling that Jordan last week released terrorists who had been transferred from Israel last year. The reason: Israel’s deal with Hezbollah to free Samir Kuntar put pressure on the Jordanian government to release the terrorists early.

In reaction to the early Jordanian release of the terrorists, Daled Amos asks:

I guess it would be too much to ask that in the interests of goodwill the Jordanians don’t celebrate and honor murderers of Israelis?

Except the record shows that releasing terrorists strengthens the extremists. So yes, it is asking too much.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Jordan said on Thursday it summoned the Israeli ambassador to protest against plans for excavation and construction work near the Al-Aqsa mosque compound, Jerusalem’s most volatile holy site.

“Foreign Minister Salah Bashir summoned the Israeli ambassador this week to officially inform him that Jordan rejects such illegal measures,” said MP Mohammed Abu Hdeib, head of the lower house of parliament’s committee on international affairs, after meeting Bashir on Thursday.

Really? Jordan objects to such “illegal measures”? And yet, Jordan had no such objections when it was using Jewish cemetery headstones to pave roads, knocking down synagogues that had stood for centuries, and letting the al-Aqsa Mosque fall into disrepair.

Funny how the Jordanians only find their voices about this when they’re not the ones doing the digging. And Israel has never deliberately destroyed Muslim holy sites. So we really have no comparison to speak of.

You know, I really want to tell Jordan to do something extremely disgusting, but I think I’ll just leave this post with a G rating. (“Eat [censored] and die” was what I was thinking, actually.)

Do you view Iran as the No. 1 threat in this region?

I think the lack of peace [between Israel and the Palestinians] is the major threat. I don’t see the ability of creating a two-state solution beyond 2008, 2009. [And] I think this is really the last chance. If this fails, I think this is going to be the major threat for the Middle East: Are we going to go for another 60 years of “fortress Israel” or are we going to have a neighborhood where Israel is actually incorporated? That is our major challenge, and I am very concerned that the clock is ticking and that the door is closing on all of us.

But aren’t you concerned that Iran is a threat both to your country and to other countries in the region?

Iran poses issues to certain countries, although I have noticed over the past month or so that the dynamics have changed quite dramatically and for the first time, I think maybe I can say that Iran is less of a threat. But if the peace process doesn’t move forward, then I think that extremism will continue to advance over the moderate stands that a lot of countries take. We’ve reached a crossroads and I’m not too sure what direction we’re heading in.

Iran is a concern to “certain countries” but apparently not to Jordan.

But then later, even while still spouting the same pieties about the peace process, he allows that he is indeed concerned with Iran.

I remember a couple of years ago, you warned against the danger posed by Iran to moderate Arab regimes. Aren’t Iran and Syria the big winners today in this region?

If we look at what happened in Lebanon two months ago [when Hezbollah routed government forces in street fighting to win major political concessions], I think the perception here is that that round was won by Iran and her proxies. We just have to be careful as to what happens in Round Two. Again, this is why I am so concerned about the peace process.

Why didn’t anyone help the government of Lebanon?

I’m just as shocked and surprised as you. The sad part is we have to be very careful. The lack of a peace process affects America’s credibility in this part of the world. If we don’t really show some wins on the ground, American influence and prestige will be dramatically diminished.

(emphases mine)

What does he have to be careful about? That he might find himself the next Arab leader under the thumb or Iran?

There is a lot of extremism in the Arab/Muslim world. That’s what accounts for tensions in the Middle East. Until moderates like Abdullah face up to this there won’t be peace. Pushing the United States to push Israel to make dangerous concessions will just strengthen the extremists. It won’t bring peace.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.