In emphasizing criticisms of the trade Israel made to get the return of the bodies of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, I’ve ignored a certain constituency: that of an Israeli soldier.
Simply Jews, an ex-soldier writes:
As an ex-soldier, I can safely say in the name of most of us that our unshakable belief that IDF and, indeed, the nation, will get us back from captivity, alive or dead, makes the service bearable. Without this belief IDF will not be what it is. The army that does not take care of its POWs is not worth serving in and the nation that forgets it sons is not worth fighting for.
After acknowledging the problem
It is not an easy vote to justify–but it is one that Israeli politicians have been forced to make time and again. Israel released convicted murderers in exchange for hostages in 1985, it returned live prisoners in exchange for body bags in 1996, it has repeatedly negotiated with terrorist organizations for similar purposes. The problem is not that the current deal creates a new precedent but, rather, that it reinforces a well-established weakness: When it comes to the return of hostages, Israel tends to throw all strategic considerations out of the window. The famous example of Entebbe–when Israeli commandos raided a Ugandan airport 32 years ago and liberated dozens of hostages in one of the most heroic forays of the Israel Defense Forces–was the exception, not the rule. The truth is that in most cases, Israel will pay any price to get its soldiers back.
Shmuel Rosner offers a similar answer:
But these are false distinctions. Israel is a society in which everyone knows everyone, in which every soldier’s fate matters to every citizen. It is a society that demands that every young man and woman perform military service, a society in which a state of war is a 60-year habit, in which national solidarity is always an existential question. For such a society, looking into the eyes of the father or wife of a kidnapped soldier and telling them that the price is just too high is something no leader is able to do. So, in the case of Israel–a country with a never-ending need for public trust in the military–the “emotional” can be the most “calculated” approach of them all.
I can’t say that I’m totally satisfied with the answer, but I’m not the one on the line.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Needless to say – Israeli and American values differ. This situation only emphasize that. The USA would never do such a trade. It is known and acceptable as much as it is painful that Israel WILL pay any price “EVENTUALLY”. The case of Ron Arad – where a deal was vetoed by Rabin leading to his murder and final disappearance – is scorched into Israeli thought process.
There are a lot of scars in the Israeli thought process. I’m not sure all of them make the Israelis stronger.
but ex soldier is only looking at it from the Regev Goldwasser perspective and not Shalit and future hostage, whose death warrants were just signed.
I think if ex soldier realized that, he would change his tune. Exhanges are bad policy, but exhanges of live murderers for dead bodies is a disaster, worthy only of the wise men fo the village of Chelm.
There are many other Israelis who see the deal as further endangering our soldiers in the future.
Including the brave soldiers and officers who signed a public declaration requesting no such trades be undertaken if they go missing in action.