Gilad Shalit

I have avoided writing about Gilad Shalit for some time, mostly because my thoughts about his situation are jumbled.  However, thanks to the urging and support of some friends, here are these thoughts in all their gory glory.

Before we get started, a little background information. Gilad Shalit is an Israeli soldier who was captured on June 25, 2006 on Israeli soil and has been held in Gaza by Hamas since then.  He was 20 years old upon his capture and is now 23.

Hamas has not allowed international aid groups to visit him although they did release a video of Shalit this October in exchange for 20 female Palestinian detainees.  Recent negotiations may result in the release of as many as 1,000 Palestinian detainees in exchange for Shalit's release.

The internal Israeli debate over the merits of the potential exchange is intense and incredibly emotional.  This is one aspect of the conflict that is, in my opinion, not fully understood in the US.  Then again, I am not sure it is possible for Americans to truly understand the emotional complexity of these issues since we lack direct experience.

For example, the US has a firm policy regarding terrorism; we do not negotiate with terrorists.  Every American knows this if only from movies and TV shows.  In a vacuum, this is the optimal policy.  As one can see, paying ransoms, whether in the form of prisoners or money, simply begets more kidnapping.  However, American military service is not analogous to Israeli military service because the US has a volunteer army and Israel does not.

The moral and morale calculus radically shifts when a nation's soldiers are not volunteers.  American soldiers all signed up for service knowing that the US would not negotiate with, say, al Qaeda for their release if they were captured.  However, Israeli soldiers are drafted.  There are real, tangible negative consequences if one refuses military service and, consequently, benefits if one does serve.

There are good reasons why Israel chooses to use the coercive power of the state to push people toward military service.  But the fact remains that coercion is necessary.  The state has, by extension, greater responsibility to ensure their safety.

Everyone in Israel agrees that Gilad Shalit must return home.  The argument is about the cost.  Hundreds of the 1,000 Palestinian detainees named in the exchange already have Israeli blood on their hands.  They have directly participated in killing Israelis either through planning or violent action.  Thus, some have concluded that the release of such people would only lead to the death and/or capture of even more Israelis, making the entire exchange a colossal risk with no upside and a huge downside.  In their eyes, the cost is too great.

But Gilad Shalit is more than a single Israeli soldier.  He is not merely the son of Mr. and Mrs. Shalit.  He is, in a way, everyone's son.  All Israeli parents know that he could be their child.  And if you were Gilad Shalit's parents, wouldn't you give up anything to get him back?

In purely pragmatic terms, it may also be important to troop morale for the IDF to secure Shalit's freedom.  There are many Israeli soldiers who serve out of a sense of duty or obligation and nothing more.  If given a choice, they certainly would not be soldiers.  In exchange for this service, the IDF promises that it will do anything possible to make sure no soldier is left behind.

If the IDF reneges on this promise, then morale may be compromised.  Non-service, already a problem, may increase.  So to prevent further erosion of popular support and troop morale, any price is worth paying.

To be honest, I did not understand the visceral nature of this dilemma until very recently.  It seemed like a fairly obvious decision from my detached American point of view.  No negotiating with terrorists, period, end of story.  1,000 detainees for one guy?  Um, are you kidding?

But as I heard Israelis debate the issue, my certainty gave way to doubt and, as I write, a sense of tearing, of being torn in two directions.  It is not necessarily a separation of heart and mind.  My mind and heart are truthfully divided neatly in two, with half of my heart siding with one side of my mind against the other halves.  Do you let a young man go through a certain future of captivity and pain, or do you potentially condemn others to die in his place?

In some situations, distance gives perspective.  But such decisions are not made by objective observers, blessed with emotional distance.  They are made by those in the swirl, buffeted by tides of pain and passion and fear and love.  It is so easy for those with little lose to give sage advice preaching patience and fortitude and calm resolve, to warn against giving in to anger.  But it is far harder to follow that path when it is you who could lose everything.

This is why I have avoided writing about Gilad Shalit.  My thoughts are drowned out by my frustration.  Frustration that we live in a world where such choices must be made.  Frustration that so few outside of Israel understand how difficult these decisions truly are.  Frustration that I can be nothing more than frustrated.

So there you go.  I hope this sparks some conversation in the United States and perhaps, help some of you understand this situation a little better.

Hiking in Ein Gedi

Last Shabbat was the best two days I've had in Israel so far.  Shira, Anna, Ross, and I took a hiking trip to Ein Gedi or the area just west of the Dead Sea.  We left Friday morning, hopped on a bus, and arrived in the middle of the desert.  We had a vague idea of what we wanted to do but like all trips, things changed once we got there. Our original plan of camping in the mountains was impossible due to the winter's early nightfall and our inability to read (or desire to pay for) a topographical.  So we decided to hike to the Hidden Spring and sleep on a beach on the shores of the Dead Sea.

On our way to the first hike, we ran across an abandoned building.  It looked like a ruined school but now was the home to a group of hyrax.  I had never seen a hyrax before; apparently, they are related to elephants and manatees, and do a lot of eating and pooping.

Then, before starting our hike, we ate a snack.

 

Bellies full, we started on our hike.  Pictures describe the hike better than I can with words, so thanks to Shira for these wonderful pictures!

Our day ended with a calm evening on the shore of the Dead Sea.  Night came around 5:30 PM, so we relaxed a little in the darkness and then took a well deserved rest (although Ross spent some time listening to the dulcet tones of techno playing from a neighboring group of campers).

The next morning, we rose at sunrise and hiked to Ein Gedi Spring, which is mentioned in the Bible.  Along the way, we saw a group of ibex munching on a tree.  It was only upon closer inspection that we noticed that some of the ibex were actually climbing in the tree to get to the good leaves.  They are more graceful than they look!

It was incredibly hot and the hike was uphill (only one way, thankfully).  But it was worth it once we got to the top and saw a tranquil pool shaded by an old tree.  It was a welcome sight for us and we had only been hiking for a short time.  I'm sure that there is some untold story in which a traveler dying of thirst stumbled across this spring and discovered the true meaning of joy.  We got only a small approximation but even that small amount was lovely.

Thanks to Shabbat, no buses were running for hours.  Fortunately, we managed to catch a cab back to Jerusalem and ate a huge dinner that night (goose breast kabobs are awesome!).

But lest things in Israel seem too calm, the IDF bombed Gaza later that evening.  Oh well...

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Or more precisely, shana tova!  This weekend, Jews around the world are celebrating Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year.  Between the Korean New Year, American New Year, and Jewish New Year, I'm swimming in temporal ambiguity.  Which year to choose?

While I'm struggling to find my place in the vasty deep of time, here are a few links worth reading:


- The UN released the report from its fact finding mission into Operation Cast Lead a few days ago and, needless to say, Israel was not happy with the results.  Richard Goldstone, former judge of the Constitutional Court of South Africa and former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former
Yugoslavia and Rwanda, headed the mission.  Mr. Goldstone published an op-ed in the New York Times explaining the mission's results.


There is a lot to parse here but there is one quote that strikes me as an odd moral equivalence:


"Unfortunately, both Israel and Hamas have dismal records of investigating their own forces. I am unaware of any case where a Hamas fighter was punished for deliberately shooting a rocket into a civilian area in Israel — on the contrary, Hamas leaders repeatedly praise such acts. While Israel has begun investigations into alleged violations by its forces in the Gaza conflict, they are unlikely to be serious and objective."

There is a significant difference between actively praising someone for killing civilians and failing to investigate violations thoroughly.  While Israel at least acknowledges civilian deaths as regrettable and takes steps to prevent them, Hamas desires civilian deaths including those of Palestinians.  Hamas deliberately places its fighters in civilian structures and uses human shields while firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets.  Israel dropped leaflets and placed phone calls to areas about to be attacked and also diverted or aborted attacks when the risk of civilian casualties was deemed too great.  There are legitimate complaints to be made about the effectiveness and thoroughness of these efforts.  But the Israeli military's failings are not, morally or legally, the same as Hamas' desire to kill civilians.

Unfortunately, when the question of culpability emerges, Mr.Goldstone only addresses one party:

"Pursuing justice in this case is essential because no state or armed group should be above the law. Western governments in particular face a challenge because they have pushed for accountability in places like Darfur, but now must do the same with Israel, an ally and a democratic state."

And nowhere does he push for accountability for Hamas and the states that support it.

- David Landau, the former editor in chief of the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, criticizes the UN report in another op-ed in the New York Times.  He criticizes the mission for asserting that "Israel intentionally went after civilians in Gaza — and wrapped its intention in lies."  In doing so, the mission failed to address the true issue, one that deserves open and fair-minded debate:

"Israelis believe that their army did not deliberately kill the hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including children, who died during “Operation Cast Lead.” They believe, therefore, that Israel is not culpable, morally or criminally, for these civilian deaths, which were collateral to the true aim of the operation — killing Hamas gunmen.

It is, some would argue, a form of self-deception.

When does negligence become recklessness, and when does recklessness slip into wanton callousness, and then into deliberate disregard for innocent human life?"

I agree with Mr. Landau.  The fact finding mission wasted its mandate on what essentially became Israel bashing, further solidifying the Israeli mindset that the world will never give them a fair hearing and that the sins of Hamas and others will always be forgiven because, in the end, no one really cares if Jews die.

- On a potentially happier note, President Obama will host meetings between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.   I'm not expecting too much right away but we have to start somewhere.

- Lastly, on a completely different note, Britan's Telegraph published a noteworthy piece on Dan Brown's 20 worst sentences.  Having worked at a bookstore during the heyday of The Da Vinci Code, I took this article to heart.  Mr. Brown is one of the most spectacularly untalented authors I have ever read.  However, he recently lost his position as the official butcher of the English language to Stephenie Meyer, the stupendously ungifted author of the Twilight series.  My favorite Twilight line?

"What if I’m not the superhero? What if I’m the bad guy?”

Holy let's-hit-people-over-the-head-with-the-emo-hammer Batman!