Banners of Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev and Gilad Shalit (AP)
"By having Hamas bring about the release of prisoners, including Fatah ones, and leaving the PA empty-handed, we are acting irrationally and undermining our chances of bringing peace."Can you explain the context for the recent reports on emerging prisoner swaps with Hezbollah and Hamas to free the captive soldiers Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser?
Israel has been traumatized since it lost track of Ron Arad, the captured Israeli Air Force navigator in 1986. For a long time it would have been possible to free him but the government decided not to pay the price. We look at the family, the wife, the daughter and feel their pain. This country should do everything to make sure this does not happen again.
With that said, what we are seeing now is madness. We have one partner, Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority (PA), with whom we are negotiating for peace. We are not supporting Abbas by freeing his people from prison. Instead, we are rewarding terrorist organizations – Hamas and Hezbollah – by freeing prisoners according to their demands. In the prisoner swap with Hamas, Israel will likely release Fatah prisoners including Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti.
What is the political logic? By acting this way we not only encourage future kidnappings of soldiers but also reinforce the conception that Israel only understands force. In the long run, it undermines our partner and the chances of reaching peace. To make the picture more balanced, we have to initiate prisoner releases in cooperation with the PA and demonstrate that this concept wrong.
There are contradictory views as to what price Israel should be paying to free its soldiers and the way in which those deals have been managed. What is your take?
It is Israel’s obligation to free its captive soldiers. I would not use the term “at any price,” but at a very high price, absolutely. I am not sure how it is in other countries, but it is inconceivable for the state of Israel to send its soldiers a message that it expects them to fight in wars or in operational activities but that they should not expect in return that the state would do everything in its powers to release them should something happen to them. I think that high-risk military operations or negotiations with the worst of our enemies are legitimate in such circumstances. If there is no other way of bringing the soldiers back home, we are committed morally to paying a very high price. Israel has used military operations successfully in the past; the most famous of which is Entebbe. But we have had failures as well. I assume no attempts were made to free the three soldiers because of lack of intelligence or slim chances of success.
In both cases, it might have been different if serious negotiations had started right after the kidnapping. The price then was much, much lower.
As for the details of the deal with Hamas, I accept the official position that it is clear to both sides that freeing Gilad Shalit will be implemented in the second stage of the cease-fire. Therefore, I think Israel can open the Gaza crossings and close them down if the deal does not go through. Although it is emotionally difficult to accept a ceasefire agreement without his immediate release, I believe this is the best way to bring him home: in expedited negotiations brokered by Egypt.
I heard reports a few days ago on the conversation between Amos Gilad, the head of the Defense Ministry’s Security-Diplomatic Bureau, and Noam Shalit, Gilad’s father, saying that if Hamas wanted to move Gilad out of Gaza they would have done so already through tunnels. I accept this position. Strategically, Hamas knows that the safest place to keep Gilad Shalit without risking an Israeli military operation is in the Gaza Strip.
Looking at the swap for Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, clearly this case, like the deal with Hamas, also encourages future kidnappings. However, releasing the few Lebanese prisoners demanded in return for our soldiers, whether alive or dead, is our duty. This is true even if we are talking about the despicable murderer Samir Kuntar . If he were a valuable bargaining chip for getting information on Ron Arad, Israel would have used him already. With regards to this argument in favor of keeping Kuntar in prison, I say that it is not worth creating two more Ron Arads to get information on one.
The release of Palestinian prisoners is one of the most pressing issues on the agenda. Why is it not getting similar press coverage to settlements, checkpoints and roadblocks, not to mention the core issues: borders, security, status of Jerusalem and refugees?
Two reasons: First, Israel understands that the 11,000 Palestinian prisoners are a strategic asset yet it leaves the issue to final status talks, at which point it would have to release them anyway. Second, we lock ourselves into an impossible position with an overly broad definition of “blood on the hands.” Most security inmates are now defined as having blood on their hands and Israel’s policy is that such prisoners cannot be released. This deadlock prevents us from using a strategic asset which is slowly but surely turning into a burden. Instead of using the situation to create an incentive for peace in the long run, and calm on the ground in the short run, we finance the imprisonment of Palestinians that eventually will have to be released. This is even worse considering that we cannot release security inmates to our partner – Abbas and the PA – but will release them to Hamas and Hezbollah, as we are seeing now.
The issue is getting attention, though. As part of the diplomatic process, seven specialized teams were set up, one of which is dedicated to prisoners. The Israeli on the team is Mike Blass and the Palestinian is former Minister of Prisoners, Hisham Abdel Razek, who is partnering with us at the Economic Cooperation Foundation (ECF) on a specialized plan to deal with prisoners. It is clearly on the agenda, we just aren’t seeing any progress.
Can you give more details on your plan?
The plan includes a gradual and monitored release of prisoners that would accompany the peace talks; a period estimated at 3-5 years. We suggest a periodic release of a certain number of prisoners according to defined criteria with every prisoner knowing his exact release date. The release would be conditioned upon the continuation of diplomatic negotiations and improved security on the ground. Because every Palestinian family has at least one member imprisoned in Israel, it would be an incentive for them to maintain peace and quiet.
Seven hundred and fifty prisoners who are sentenced for life would not be released in the beginning, only after a permanent status agreement is signed, when all prisoners would have to be released anyway. It is part of the reconciliation process. Until then, Israel would release gradually women, children, Oslo prisoners, stone throwers et cetera. The criteria are varied and include, for example, the severity of the offense and having served at least a third of a sentence. The uniqueness of the plan, in addition to it being coordinated with a Palestinian partner who is an official representative to the negotiating team, is that we intend to cooperate with both the PA and the prisoners’ leadership in jail. If there is one leadership in Palestinian society that all Palestinians respect, it is neither Fatah nor Hamas, but the one jailed in Israel. No matter how we look at them – terrorists, murderers, criminals – internally, they are considered freedom fighters. It is weird for us but the Palestinians do not differentiate between someone who threw a stone and another that killed an Israeli child. They are all heroes. Hisham Abdel Razek has obtained an agreement in principle from both factions to the plan and this is also the plan that was presented, and is being discussed, between the negotiating teams.
If Israel’s policy is not to release prisoners with blood on their hands, which pertains to many of the prisoners, how would the severity of offense be determined?
The definition is irrelevant in my opinion. Most prisoners, except for those under administrative detention, were tried or are currently on trial. Israel is a democratic state with rule of law. The verdict and punishment take into consideration all components of the offense. But on top of that, politicians came up with a judicially irrelevant, and politically problematic, definition of “blood on the hands.” We intend to look only at the sentence to determine who would be released and when.
What is the prospect for the implementation of your plan?
The plan was presented to the negotiating teams but needs to be officially presented to the Palestinian side, which should not be complicated given that Hisham Abdel Razek is involved. It is a matter of a political decision that should be taken by the Israeli leadership. It is clear that the Palestinians won’t sign a final status agreement that does not include the release of prisoners. Instead of waiting until then, we should show our partner that as long as negotiations head in the right direction and security improves, we will support him with a coordinated plan of prisoner release. It is incomprehensible that nothing is being done, especially nowadays, to balance the situation in which terror organizations are rightfully being perceived as winners while Abbas is losing support. I don’t know if there is anything planned at the moment to stop this process, perhaps an additional release of prisoners as a gesture. That would be a mistake – gestures are unilateral acts that disrespect our partner. A coordinated process in which the PA has to assume responsibility would pave a new path in the negotiations.
How can the international community help solve the issue of prisoners?
The international community, and the United States in particular, doesn’t have to be involved in the actual plans for prisoner releases but can have influence on Israel to initiate such a plan. On a broader scale, we are looking also into rehabilitation of prisoners after their release. The international community can be involved in this phase.
How do you suggest Israel should move forward on this front given the recent developments?
To balance the picture a little and bolster Abbas, Israel should announce a plan to release prisoners as part of the peace talks. On a smaller scale, we have the positive example of Jenin, where security improved remarkably under the auspices of the PA’s security forces and where Prime Minister Salam Fayyad visits every weekend. We can capitalize on this initiative known as “Jenin first” and announce initially the release of prisoners from the Jenin area. There are currently 1,200 of them in prison. Even that would make a real difference to the people and automatically make Abbas look better.
For that however we need to change the public discourse in Israel. There are now strong objections to release of prisoners with blood on their hands. Thus, a massive public campaign is needed to qualify such a move.
We have to remember, we keep saying that our partner is Abbas and the Fatah government. But there are more Fatah prisoners in Israel than Hamas: 4,100 from Fatah, 2,350 Hamas, 1,200 Islamic Jihad, 2,000 from small organizations and on trial, 750 administrative prisoners and the rest are detainees. By having Hamas bring about the release of prisoners, including Fatah ones, and leaving the PA empty-handed, we are acting irrationally and undermining our chances of bringing peace.