The cost of saving a life
DVIR ABRAMOVICH
ANYONE watching the two-and-a-half minute video of 21-year-old Gilad Shalit — the Israeli soldier abducted and held captive by Hamas for 1222 days — must have shed a tear.
The image of the young man, alone, helpless, scared, with a forced smile (doctors have speculated that Shalit was given sedatives) pleading for his life and telling his family that he loves them, was heartbreaking.
And every parent knows, deep in their hearts, that they would trade the world to save their child.
The Shalit case has placed Israel in an agonising existential dilemma — what should the government do when it knows that the ransom demanded by Hamas includes freeing hundreds of terrorists with blood on their hands who are likely to kill again?
Shalit’s father, Noam, who has appealed to Israeli leadership’s “moral duty” to save a soldier serving on behalf of the state, has the backing of public opinion in Israel, which sees Shalit’s release as a sacred duty.
According to journalist Ben Caspit, 63 per cent of Hamas prisoners and 67 per cent of Islamic Jihad prisoners who were released in hostage exchanges returned to the ranks of their groups and carried out or attempted to carry out terrorist attacks.
The Israeli organisation Gam Ani (Me Too) includes on its website pictures of 18 of the 180 Israeli citizens who were killed in terrorist attacks. Translated into English it reads: “The murder of each one of them could have been prevented if the terrorists were not freed in the past in exchange for a few soldiers or the bodies of dead soldiers. Do we really want to add more pictures to this terrible collection?”
Nahum Barnea, a prominent Israeli commentator, maintains that, “The unwritten contract between a state and its troops says the soldier pledges to risk his life for it, and that the state pledges not to risk his life in vain and do everything possible to free him from captivity.”
At various demonstrations advocating Shalit’s release, signs that were held up declared: “Don’t let Gilad become another Ron Arad” -— a reference to the Israeli officer that has been missing, presumed dead, for the past 23 years.
The families of the victims of terror have come out in opposition to a prisoner swap, especially after Yael Zeevi, the widow of assassinated politician Rehavham “Gandhi” Zeevi, stated that she would be willing for her husband’s killers to be swapped for Shalit, stressing that her husband saw the mitzvah of redeeming prisoners as paramount.
Chair of the Victims of Terror, Ze’ev Rap, whose 15-year-old daughter Helena was murdered, reacted angrily. “The memory of our beloved cries for revenge from the ground,” he said, while Stanley Boim and Efraim Kastiel, who lost a son and a daughter respectively, expressed similar sentiments.
Yet, Dorit Ben Dor, whose daughter was killed by terrorists, said: “Shalit is still alive so we must take him back, alive, to his parents. I think now Shalit is my son, I hope they will not give up.”
Yitzhak Ovitz, who serves in the same unit and tank in which Shalit served, has written to Ehud Barak stating that if he falls captive, he does not want to be released as part of an exchange deal. Ovitz said that he cannot see an entire state on its knees begging for Shalit’s release.
There are reports that the Israel Defence Forces knows where Shalit is being held, that the building where he is has been booby-trapped with explosives, and that his guards have been instructed to immediately shoot him if a rescue raid is staged.
The government has ruled out this option since it does not want another Nachshon Waxman, the Israeli soldier who was killed during a military rescue attempt.
Some commentators argue that any deal would only strengthen Hamas in the upcoming elections; that a swap would embolden future terrorists with the knowledge that even if they are caught they will be out eventually; that a deal would encourage the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and that the government must declare that from now onwards, all negotiations are off and that if Shalit is harmed, Hamas leaders will be targeted and tough sanctions will be imposed on the Palestinians.
It has also been argued that agreeing to Hamas’ delaying tactics and blackmail has humiliated Israel and embarrassed a proud nation; that turning the case of a captured soldier into a national priority invites failure, as the Ron Arad experience demonstrates; and that Shalit, as a soldier, knew the risks of being killed (like his two fellow soldiers) in battle or being taken by the enemy.
There aren’t any easy choices. And there are no easy answers.
Dr Dvir Abramovich, the Jan Randa senior lecturer in Hebrew and Jewish studies, is director of The University of Melbourne’s Centre for Jewish History and Culture.
comments