Tired of saying tehillim for Gilad Shalit

In 1979, Iranian college students took over the U.S. embassy in Teheran and held 52 men hostage for 444 days.* As a final insult to the American president, Jimmy Carter, the students released the hostages on his successor's inauguration day.

A political cartoon from that period showed the American eagle locked in a birdcage.

I thought of that image when considering Israel's situation regarding its soldier Gilad Shalit held hostage by Hamas since June 25, 2006. Hamas is a secretive, shadowy terrorist organization. But Israel is a sovereign state with an international spy operation that has no rival in the world. When Israel decides to assassinate Hamas leaders, it does so. In fact, the professional execution of a terrorist operative in Dubai last week is widely attributed to Mossad, the Israeli spy agency, which refuses to confirm or deny its involvement. This is its standard plausible deniability tactic.

So what's the problem? Why is Gilad Shalit still being held hostage, after nearly four years?

At the conclusion of a service in many orthodox synagogues, the prayer leader will say a paragraph of tehillim (usually Psalm 130) "because of the ongoing situation in Israel," which refers to the conflict in general but specifically to Shalit. I'm tired of it, not just because it makes the service longer (which is selfish) but because the situation could most likely be easily solved. There's only one way to find out.

There is probably no diplomatic solution to the hostage situation. If Hamas were to release Shalit at all, it would demand a significant prisoner exchange involving dozens or hundreds of convicted murderers. Other than that, there is no good reason for Hamas to give up its one ace in the hole to its sworn enemy. It would lose considerable credibility and respect from the "Arab street" it claims to represent.

When China kept American servicemen hostage for a week or so in 2001, the U.S. president apologized (twice--embarrassing), and the People's Republic allowed the men to go home. When Iran captured British servicemen in 2007, there was intense international pressure on Iran to release the men. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saw a public relations opportunity and released them within two weeks, saying, "This pardon is a gift to the British people." Since the world's conscience doesn't lose any sleep over a captured Israeli, Israel is getting almost no help in securing Shalit's release, despite his French and (awarded since capture) Italian citizenship.

Could Israel please stop acting like a scared little kid and start acting like a regional military power?

Call up Hamas and demand Shalit's unconditional release within 48 hours. Then start hunting down Hamas' murderous operatives and assassinate them--one per day. Shalit would be home soon enough. What would be the world's reaction? The extreme Left would once again be in the uncomfortable position of defending homicide terrorism. Sure, it does that anyway, but when one weighs Shalit's plight against the lives of terrorists, most of world opinion would be on Shalit's side.

Your move, Israel. Do you want to see Shalit grow old in captivity? He turns 24 in August. He should celebrate at home.

_________
*They released the women and children almost immediately after the raid.

RedEye's Israel problem

RedEye,the free Tribune Co. tabloid publication aimed at people who ride the bus and/or train to work in Chicago, frequently prints international news in a couple of column inches. An item on Israel is limited to this coverage with what is often a very misleading headline. On Feb. 10, the headline was "More airstrikes in Gaza." No context as to what prompted the airstrikes. The first sentence said, "Israeli aircraft struck two targets in the Gaza Strip and a militant died in a clash with troops on the border Monday." Why did the "militant" (terrorist?) die? Maybe because he attacked the troops or was seen launching a rocket toward Israel? Or was it ruthless Israeli aggression? Yeah, right. We just don't know, and the casual news observer is left to draw his own conclusions. So first I criticized RedEye in my Twitter feed, saying, "Your 'More airstrikes in Gaza' item 02-10 gives no context for reason--Hamas rocket attacks. Your editor keeps doing this." This reached my 68 followers (wow! =)), plus a RedEye editor. The editor replied that context is difficult with only 30 words. I replied that context is necessary as far as Israel is concerned, and if RedEye doesn't have enough room, then the story should be dropped. In my Twitter comments, I have a 140-character limit. So I emailed ritaredeye@tribune.com and wrote:

Dear Editor:

Twice I have complained to your Twitter writer about items in the RedEye news roundup about Israel. The latest was yesterday's very biased headline: "More airstrikes in Gaza." Obviously there's much more to the story, but the Twitter writer explained, "Context isn't always easy in 30 words." Actually it was 46 words including the headline. Here's my version: same word limit, different angle:

Hamas terrorists attack Israeli troops in Gaza

A Hamas terrorist attacked Israeli troops in Gaza Monday, forcing them to respond, fatally wounding him. Due to Hamas terrorists in Gaza shelling Israeli civilian areas, Israeli aircraft launched a defensive response, striking two Gaza targets.

I'm sure you noticed the difference. Your story, perhaps pulled from anti-Israel media such as Reuters, euphemistically refers to "The violence" when the reality is "Hamas terrorist violence" and "Israeli defensive response." My story's perspective is different and yet retains the basic facts, in 43 words. Please be more careful when adding Mideast stories as anti-Israel bias frequently comes into play.

* * *

I think I made my point, and I hope RedEye pays attention.

IDF explains Israel's position to its Arab neighbors

This video has subtitles for those of us whose Arabic is rusty.

Can you hide in 15 seconds?

This is a powerful short film.

Israel held to a pacifist standard

“This is how you can tell, by the way, an antisemite. There is no other country in the world where someone would expect the country to absorb rocket attacks by the hundreds, injuring and murdering your own populace without a response. Except if it’s a Jewish country, well then yes of course you should keep absorbing the rocket attacks.”

--Michael Medved, The Michael Medved Show, Dec. 29

Politically incorrect announcement on Israel

Last spring, we attended a fundraiser for a Knesset candidate, Moshe Feiglin. He had a five-point plan to eliminate Israel’s problems with her neighbors. I loved it. Point #5 was “no peace agreements,” and darn it, I agree with him. It’s one matter to make peace with sovereign states like Egypt and Jordan. That’s bad enough! Egypt spends its billions of U.S. military aid arming itself for a potential war with Israel. Jordan spends all its energy protecting the ruling family from its majority-Palestinian population. It’s another matter entirely to make peace with shadowy terrorist groups bent on Israel’s destruction. Of course I lament the loss of innocent life that occurred during Israel’s initial assault on Hamas strongholds in Gaza Saturday morning. Part of Hamas’ strategy is to maintain its terrorism forces amongst civilians—a clear violation of international law. The Geneva Convention clearly states members of a military cannot mix with civilians in wartime, and if they do, the state, not its attacker, bears responsibility for civilian casualties. I’m very hopeful Israel can achieve its goals, unlike the bad ending the Hezbollah war had a few summers ago. Furthermore, I suppressed a smile when I read the Tribune headline this morning: “What next for Obama’s Mideast plan? Experts say Israel-Hamas violence may be a crippling blow to peace-talk hopes.” In any peace talks with Hamas, the minimum that Israel should accept are: recognition; renunciation of violence; and honoring previous agreements. Hamas will never, ever agree to those terms. So Israel would be forced to settle for less and be strategically weaker as a result. During the upcoming Obama Administration, Israel supporters ought to fear a White House hostile to Israeli security needs; and peace agreements that weaken Israel with “land for peace.” Zionists are afraid the new President’s State Department, like its predecessors, will blame Israel for its own failings and pressure the state to make concessions it simply cannot afford. If Israel’s attempts to stop the shelling of its land—which Hamas had no intention of stopping long-term—end up achieving that goal as well as ending any possibility of peace agreements with Hamas, then Israel is better off on both counts.

As an aside, let’s keep in mind what Hamas considers “peace agreements”: interim waiting periods that allow Hamas to plan and prepare for the next war or attack wave.