printThis may sound chauvinistic, but when nations are consumed with safekeeping their own, by default (and in self interest), they are more careful with the lives of their enemies.
Israel has demonstrated once again its commitment to that Talmudic verse, “To Save One Life Is Like Saving the World.” (The verse was ‘appropriated,” or ripped off, by Islam, and an exclusionary clause written into the equivalent Quranic ayah. Islam’s borrowed version, needless to say, is considerably less humanistic and universal.)
MSNBC’s Martin Bashir expressed bewilderment at the news that,
Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and hundreds of Palestinians crossed Israel’s borders in opposite directions on Tuesday as a thousand-for-one prisoner exchange brought joy to families but did little to ease decades of conflict. …In all, Israel is setting free 1,027 Palestinians in return for the liberty of Shalit. Some have spent 30 years behind bars for violent attacks against Israel and its occupation of land taken in the 1967 Middle East War.
Over 100 of the 477 prisoners released in the first phase of the exchange were taken to the West Bank. The rest were coming into Gaza, apart from 41 who were due to fly out from Cairo to exile in Turkey, Syria or Qatar.
Bashir, a neocon-cum-liberal, is in good company here in the US. The following is from a 2004, Antiwar.com column:
… the neoconservatives at National Review have grumbled about Israel’s “lopsided prisoner exchanges” over the years. One “sofa samurai,” Eric Leskly, [once noted] the startling disparity of exchanging 5,500 Egyptian soldiers, following the Sinai campaign of 1956, “for the lives of the four Israeli soldiers captured in the fighting,” and over 8,000 Egyptians, after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in exchange for 240 Israeli soldiers.
Its official policy notwithstanding, Israel has also negotiated with terrorists for the lives and bodies of its soldiers. As Dr. Boaz Ganor, executive director of the International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, told the Jerusalem Post: “Israeli governments are more prone to the influence of public opinion.”
I remember thinking just that when, years back, I watched demonstrators heckle Ariel Sharon after yet another suicide bombing. One man yelled, “If you don’t sort this mess out, I’ll personally pay you a visit.”
UPDATE II: Bar Ron Paul, the debaters at the CNN Western Republican Presidential Debate related not at all to the Israeli position—a consistent preference for doing what it takes to save a life, even if not always strategic.
(1) The DEBATE – once again, it was Ron Paul and small government vs. the big government “conservative” statists in this debate. I disagree with him (it appears) on the border fence issue but the whole border issue cannot be discussed without also getting into the War on Drugs … not covered in the debate.
(2) Gilad Shalit is a topic which I am out of synch with a lot of people – but I am influenced by Jeff Jacoby’s column:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/10/18/shalits_release_will_be_too_costly_for_israel/
who cites that 183 Jews have been murdered by RELEASED TERRORISTS:
http://jewjewsjewish.blogspot.com/2009/01/almagor-terror-victims-association.html
As heartless as it is to say – my life is not worth the deaths of 183 other Jews or even a dozen atheists over…. –
I just hope no additional people get murdered as a result of this “prisoner exchange”.
Respecting (prepositionally speaking) the Qur’an’s cribbing:
”We know what a person thinks not when he tells us what he thinks, but by his actions.” – Isaac Bashevis Singer
The debate was a fun read, Cooper actually did well. I liked Paul’s way of running the debate from the back row. Everyone had to respond to him. If you look at Paul’s ideas using the example of moving the country’s government as going back to 1955. It is easy to see why Immigration would not be a problem. Education would not be a problem, the economy would not be a problem. That doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be any problems, just that they would be small in comparison. I think he wants to do more, but, 1955 works for me. Back to the subject, his answer to the hostage exchange was great. He refused to give an opinion. By making the others defend their aggressive opinions he made the point that it was Israel’s decision to make. Following his example, is probably a good idea.
Not sure what to think about this policy of Israel’s. On one hand, yes, it does show the commitment to individual lives. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to engender any gratitude among the populace being thus cared for, and it does seem to encourage Hamas et al. to seize more captives.
What do you think of Daniel Greenfield’s position?
Just about everything Paul said should be abolished were created, including fiat money, after 1955 and was my point for comparison. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.