Gevangenenruil: de prijs van 'tegen elke prijs'

In Israël is fel gedebateerd en gedemonstreerd over de gevangenenruil met zowel Hezbollah als Hamas. De kwestie ligt erg gevoelig gezien het Israëlische principe om elke soldaat thuis te brengen, zelfs dode soldaten. De terroristische groeperingen weten dit en vragen een enorme prijs, vaak de vrijlating van honderden gevangenen -waaronder velen met bloed aan hun handen- voor één soldaat. Behalve dat een deel van hen weer opnieuw geweldsdaden tegen Israël zal gaan plegen, maakt het pogingen om meer soldaten te ontvoeren ook erg aanlokkelijk. Wat dat betreft is te hopen dat Hezbollah haar lesje heeft geleerd van haar 'glorieuze overwinning' in de Tweede Libanon Oorlog van 2006.

 

Wouter

_________________

The cost of 'at any cost'

 

By Alexander Yakobson
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/998050.html

 

 

Those who say "at any cost" are usually not prepared to admit what the real cost is. The expected cost of the exchange of "prisoners for bodies" with Hezbollah is more Israeli bodies. Those who will pay this price have families, too, but with no one to wage a media or public campaign for them. They have no one to preach in their name to the country's leaders and accuse them of insensitivity. Protecting them is the lackluster, thankless job of a responsible national leadership.

 

The debate over the swap did not take place along expected political lines. It cannot be said this time that the left pressured the other side to give in. Yossi Beilin was against the deal, while Orthodox ministers and MKs supported it.

 

Neither can it be said that the deal was forced on the defense establishment: While the chiefs of the Mossad and the Shin Bet security service opposed it, the chief of staff was in favor. This is not the victory of one camp or approach over another. This unfortunate decision reflects national - not to say tribal - and religious-traditional sensitivities characteristic of the Israeli right, no less than it reflects the sensitivities of the Israeli left in its present liberal and individualistic form (very different from its classical form).
 
In this case various forces came together in an extreme way: a focus on the individual to the extent of ignoring the general interest (and the fact that individuals who compose the collective are the ones who pay a price for harm to the collective); the power of the media in a modern, free society; the natural tendency to stand with individuals in their problems with the government; the powerful Jewish tribal emotion of solidarity "at any cost" - going so far as to endanger the tribe itself; and the particular Jewish sensitivity to providing a Jewish burial for the dead.

 

With regard to the last issue, this is not about obedience to a rule of Jewish law, as a strong basis against a dangerous deal of this type can also be found in Jewish law. It is about deep-set feelings that, while they stem from the religious and traditional Jewish world, impact many secular people. A stranger would not understand the force of these feelings in dictating political decisions that endanger human life. This is one of the cases in which the stranger would be right.

 

All these attitudes and sensitivities have their places, in forms that are rational and not extreme. They can also be found to share a foundation of principle, despite the tension between them. Their correct integration is very powerful, and to a great extent this is the secret of Israel's strength.

 

However this also becomes the secret of its weakness when the weaknesses of all these approaches are combined. This time the combination created a dangerous Israeli weakness in the face of a determined and unbridled enemy, an enemy that has no interest in a "diplomatic solution" of any kind. The uncovering of a weakness like this in the face of such an enemy is not a matter of damaged prestige; it is a serious danger to human life.

 

Clearly a refusal to exchange prisoners would also inflict a heavy price. When it comes to bringing home live prisoners, there is no choice but to compare costs - the cost of dealing as opposed to the cost of a refusal to deal. There is no precise and agreed-on formula to compare such costs. This is a harsh dilemma and an issue for legitimate debate, one in which no side should be permitted to say "at any price." However, the release of prisoners in exchange for bodies is a red line that should not be crossed.

 

A free and open society has one well-known characteristic: it frequently appears weaker than it really is. Not because the weaknesses are not real and painful, but because in the final tally the sources of strength in such a society usually outnumber its weaknesses. If this were not the case, world history over the past century would be very different, and Israel would not have marked 60 years of independence.

 

Hezbollah sees the agreement as a victory, and not without reason. However, while Nasrallah's muses roar, the cannons are silent. Israel's northern border has been completely quiet for the past two years - the longest since the 1960s. Clearly we cannot know what the new day will bring. But it seems that the last conflict did not lead Hezbollah to the conclusion that Israel can be challenged without fear. This organization is celebrating Israel's weaknesses, but it also understands its strength.