SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home The Return: Gilad Shalit Comes Home

TEL AVIV JOURNAL OCTOBER 19, 2011

The Return: Gilad Shalit Comes Home

BY MARTIN PERETZ

The return to Zion has been a trope in Jewish history for more than 3,000 years. It pertains to the people Israel itself. And it applies also to individual Jews, both in the abstract and in the tactile, as a matter of conscience and as a fact of communality. You will know already from my other writings just how much I pity those Jews who are alienated from these considerations or, worse yet, haven’t the slightest idea of what I mean. Of course, ignorance of one’s past can excuse a lot. But it’s not a satisfying answer to inquiring children. Good luck to those who feel they can wing it.

Gilad Shalit’s return to Israel after nearly five years and four months in captivity to Hamas, the official and unembarrassed terrorist wing of the Palestinian movement, and incommunicado even to the International Red Cross (which has a mortifying record of utter indifference to the Jewish prisoners in the concentration camps of another totalist ideology to live down), was experienced by Israel as a whole, by Israel in its home, and by Israel in its dispersion. As The New York Times aptly pointed out, Shalit was the first captured Israeli soldier to be returned alive in 26 years. For those Jews who pray and especially for those who don’t really but try—which, in the present season, means just about all of Jewry, yes, this tiny remnant of 14 million living souls—the journey of Shalit back to his family and to his nation is a moment of celebration anda kind of victory. It is also a conflicted moment given the number of terrorists who were released at the same time; this line from Yehuda Amichai (cited by Rabbi Avraham Weiss in a commentary on Shalit) sums up the situation perfectly: “A person needs to love and hate at the same moment. To laugh and cry with the same eyes. … To make love in war and war in love.”

I am back in Israel myself, having arrived on Monday, and thus able to experience the éclat of the reunion. There is a sense in the streets and in the cafes that, aside from the torment suffered by the isolated young sergeant, his restoration to his mother and father and to the wider fellowship of his people was a penitential happening. Frankly, it’s hard to grasp and harder to convey the sense that Shalit’s ordeal was a social phenomenon that bound Israel and Jewry together. After all, Israel is a complicated—no, intricate—society with interest groups and motives of all sorts, some rough and even selfish, some tender and even silly, some reasonable and fraternal. One reason why most of Israel, almost all of Israel, thrilled to this summer’s taking to the streets was that it represented a vast number of the country’s citizenry and its aim was social union. There was no violence, although there was occasional ideological rancor. But the essence of it, mirabili dicta, was democratic communalism, private initiative, and patriotism. There is no country I know with so strong a mesh of individualism and cooperative sentiment at its core. That’s why love of country, true love of country, is an ideal to which virtually every Israeli Jew adheres. I cannot imagine in Israel a confrontation between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, with two nutcase scenarios, each guaranteed to fail. “Hatikvah” still commands the heartstrings that, alas, “The Star-Spangled Banner” does not quite command.

It is true that over the years many in the 20 percent of the Israeli population that is Arab have been increasingly alienated from the whole. Some of this is attributable to small, very small, even tiny neo-fascist elements among Jews in the country. But, believe me, no crime committed by even those Jews against a Muslim mosque or an Arab olive grove can be compared—or should be—with the murders that are more or less routinely committed by Palestinian patriots. For example, less than a month ago, a car pursued by rocks (no one admits to throwing the rocks) was overturned and its 25 year-old Israeli driver and his one year-old son were dead when the dust settled. There are plenty of references to this incident in the ordinary news aggregators. No mention that I can find in the Times. You probably also recall the Fogel family, five of whom were killed by butcher-knife-wielding men at their house. A three-month-old boy was one of the victims. Presumably, he would grow up to be a Zionist. There are plenty of accounts of this one. There was a YouTube clip of the bloody evidence. Too violent, I suppose.

But not too violent for Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority. He’s been serving for more than two years since his term ran out. But that’s okay with nearly everyone except Hamas which, in any case, is the hero of the hour, having kidnapped Shalit in the first place and then playing high stakes diplomacy for his release and the so-to-speak reciprocal release of 1,027 Palestinians, a bit less than half in Tuesday’s transaction and the rest in about two months. Abbas welcomed the freed prisoners: “Your sacrifice and hard work were not in vain. … You freedom fighters and holy warriors worked for the sake of God and the holy land.”

I did not find any reports yet from the wider Arab world of the response to the diplomatic victory registered by Hamas who, as it happens, promised more of the same. But the near-frostbite of the Egyptian Arab Spring leaves little room for joy and solidarity. The Syrian death count threnody goes on and on. The Yemeni conflagration gets worse, and even we Americans can’t really tell whether the ally we are helping is worthy of our help. King Abdullah of Jordan has for the second time in eight months dismissed his premier and hired himself another—when, in fact, the issue is His Majesty himself. But if he leaves the only option for Jordan would be another Palestine—that’s three Palestines and still no constituted Palestinian people. You’ll have to figure out the Libyan condition by yourself.

Terrorists don’t keep accurate or faithful statistics on their achievements. But, according to the Israeli press, the heroes of the Palestinian mob murdered at least 500 Israeli civilians, maimed and wounded many hundreds more, and left so many families and communities torn that these men (and some two dozen women) must belong in some macabre book of world records. We will see how many of these criminals return by habit, by ingrained character, and by ideological belief to their crimes. My guess is that within months there will be at least several who will have returned to this horrifying work.

Still, the Israeli population triumphed over this realistic anxiety and in the end did not leave a single living son in the hands of the enemy. It is a brave act, carried out over a long five years.

After Shalit crossed out of Gaza into Egypt, the Cairo government, such as it is, played a shabby trick by forcing him to be questioned at a full-fledged press conference—as if he could answer honestly rather than in strained dilpomatese in the process. He was asked how he was treated during his incarceration in Gaza. Would you answer truthfully when you are still in the hands of an Arab government that is not Hamas but is maneuvering in a way the last regime did not to be on the best of terms with it? In the end, the truth came out. Anyone could see that Shalit was starved for Vitamin C. His wounds from explosives were not tended to in the aftermath of his kidnapping. He limped. He was woefully thin.

A curious footnote emerged in the last days of the negotiations. And it is one that is, as they say, curiouser and curiouser. The president of the State of Israel, Shimon Peres, can’t shut up when he has nothing to say and he can’t shut up when he should remain quiet. I don’t know which case exactly this one is. But he leaked to journalists who live off leaks that he had contacts with the Turks that paved the path or were paving the path for a diplomatic breakthrough. In any case, I don’t believe it. But I don’t believe anything that President Peres says—most especially his old invention of “the new middle east.” It looks pretty ragged to me.

Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief emeritus of The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 48 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

48 comments

Jews should stop being thankful to the Turks and other Islamic extortionists. Every little morsel of civility is priced to humiliate and demean their victims. Peres is long past his prime. The Gilad Shalit episode has sadly given Israel's enemies a new tool. It's hard to see what this does for social solidarity. Now, what will be paid to extract those foolish dreamers, , not even soldiers, Ilan Grapel and David Gerbi, from Egypt and Libya, respectively?

- amidut

October 19, 2011 at 1:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Amidut, I'm too tired to google. Who are Ilan Grapel and David Gerbi? It was moving, too moving, to see Shalit make his return. I was heartbroken by his appearance. How will they make him whole again. Can he recover from living five years never knowing if he'd be dead the next minute. I seriously doubt any of the Palestinians returned home looking like that. Never mind the privations, I doubt for a minute they feared for their lives. They do not, as some suggest, deserve equal and equitable coverage from the press.

- MOLLYSIMON

October 19, 2011 at 2:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Anti-Zionists overlook the episodes Marty cites because their criticism is based not on actions (killing members of the opposing nationality) but on who is performing them, which makes their hatred of Israel existential. If you fault one nation for the same transgression you ignore in others, then your hatred is of that nation and not the transgression. Speaking of double standards, you don't hear much complaining about the asymmetry of Israel's concessions here. Rabbi David Wolpe's observations were characteristically astute: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNGYrq7ge-0

- drheingold

October 19, 2011 at 3:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm happy for Shalit, his family, and their supporters world-wide. But I deeply regret the release of murderers that facilitated future hostage-taking as well as Shalit's release. It must be technically possible to implant a tiny homing device in the worst offenders and follow their release with a missile...

- Robert Powell

October 19, 2011 at 4:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Look at this photo: http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/10/un_shows_its_bias_again_on_sha.html _____________ http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/10/18/the-freeing-of-gilad-shalit-shows-israel%E2%80%99s-humanity-%E2%80%93-and-hamas%E2%80%99s-blood-chilling-cruelty/ "Hamas has been content to hold Gilad Shalit for five years; we do not know in what sort of conditions as yet, but we do know that his imprisonment was not in accord with the Geneva convention. Shalit may have been taken in a war but the way he was held reminds us of the kidnapping of Terry Waite, Brian Keenan and John McCarthy. Just as we remember the long agony of that crisis, we ought to understand something of what the Israelis have been going through on behalf of Gilad Shalit. This shows that Hamas is quite prepared to use cruel methods to advance its cause, whatever that cause may be. Cruelty is surely never to be condoned. This behaviour of Hamas ought to chill the blood of all humane people. I am not an apologist for Israel, and I deplore much of what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians, but in kidnapping Gilad Shalit and holding him for five years, Hamas have done the Palestinian cause no favours. Indeed they have done something wrong in itself, something inhumane, something to be condemned by all. By contrast, the Israelis, in caring about Shalit, in refusing to sacrifice him, and in releasing 1,000 Palestinian prisoners early, has shown a merciful face to the world."

- noga1

October 19, 2011 at 7:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am happy as all the Israelis for return of Gilad Shalit. This is Simply Jews blog: "A lot has been, and more will be, said about freeing Gilad Shalit in exchange for one thousand palestinian prisoners. Yes, freeing criminals is not such a smart thing to do. Still, they won't make much difference to us, there are plenty of would-be martyrs out there anyway. The pros and the cons are well known, I'm not willing to go into that quicksand. There is however one argument that has thus far eluded both sides. Israel is about to get back a young man who never did anything wrong, a simple citizen of this country. The palestinians, on the other hand, are going to be flooded with almost one thousand criminals, and good luck building a stable society with that (Hamas could use some stability in light of recent and ongoing events in the region, and even though it won a few points with the Shalit deal, this is not quite what ordinary people need for their daily lives to run smoothly). One simple citizen for us, one thousand criminals for them. We win." However, one must quote also from Alon Pinkas, who served as Consul General of Israel in the US: "1) The only country in the world that incessantly preaches and pontificates never to deal with terrorists is the one that repeatedly does so. 2) The message to Hamas - and this is exactly how it is perceived - is essentially: Israel only understands force. 3) If this is such a good deal, then why was it not struck four, three, two or one year ago? This deal is exactly the deal that the German mediator negotiated in 2007. 4) We all grew up on camaraderie and the Jewish value of "Redemption of Prisoners". Yet this deal reflects weakness and projects lack of staying power. Can you imagine the US or Britain making such a deal?"

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

October 19, 2011 at 7:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps not a homing device, RP, but I'd say it's a pretty good bet that a small number of the returning Palestinians might now be, in some shape or form, Israeli intelligence assets.

- ironyroad

October 19, 2011 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There is however one argument that has thus far eluded both sides. Israel is about to get back a young man who never did anything wrong, a simple citizen of this country. The palestinians, on the other hand, are going to be flooded with almost one thousand criminals, and good luck building a stable society with that (Hamas could use some stability in light of recent and ongoing events in the region, and even though it won a few points with the Shalit deal, this is not quite what ordinary people need for their daily lives to run smoothly)." This assumes that Hamas wants to build a "stable society." They'll may use the freed criminals for more terrorist activity. This isn't going to be good for Israel. Netanyahu who cares more about his political future than about his country couldn't have been more cynical. I wonder how Shalit will feel if some of the released murderers would kill again women and children?

- arnon

October 19, 2011 at 10:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

agree with what Robert Powell wrote 10/19/2011 - 4:15am EDT | had been thinking same thing about embedded tracking device, but have watched enough NCIS to know the released murderers would know how to disable such devices. However, I am certain Israel has complete bio-metric data. Dr. Peretz: thank you. These are the words I have been wanting to read about Israel and Gilad Shalit, may he live a long life of peace and healing from such communal love.

- K2K

October 19, 2011 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Robert Powell "It must be technically possible to implant a tiny homing device in the worst offenders and follow their release with a missile..." What a boon to paranoid antisemites.

- arnon

October 19, 2011 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I thought Netanyahu was nuts to release 1,000 prisoners for just one man until I read that Hamas is now trailing badly in public sentiment, without a strong and popular Hamas Netanyahu would have more opportunities to negotiate with the Palestinians and therefore not be able to expand the settlements. How many innocent Israeli children will now die for the release of one man? I am not saying all trades are off, if 500 are petty criminals then I have zero problem with that, and I would celebrate the release of the poor man but many were vicious murderers who will kill again.

- blackton

October 19, 2011 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Talk about a tough psychological weight for young Shalit. I'm sure he's ecstatic to be home, but I can't begin to imagine how I'd feel if I had been captured back in the war and my release was negotiated at the price of a thousand al qaida fighters. And in Israel, no less, where I imagine it isn't tough to run into direct or indirect victims of Palestinian violence on a regular basis. May he be at peace.

- Tristan

October 19, 2011 at 12:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The return to Zion has been a trope in Jewish history for more than 3,000 years. It pertains to the people Israel itself. And it applies also to individual Jews, both in the abstract and in the tactile, as a matter of conscience and as a fact of communality. You will know already from my other writings just how much I pity those Jews who are alienated from these considerations or, worse yet, haven’t the slightest idea of what I mean." - MP Well, Marty, pity me because I haven't the slightest idea what you mean. Where to even begin? The word "trope" has negative connotations. Thus when Peretz writes "The return to Zion has been a trope in Jewish history" his blunt phrase has the opposite meaning of what he intends. The rest of the paragraph is just appalling. (A sentence that begins "And it applies also" is a sentence that must be rewritten. The phrase "in the tactile" is just a horror.) That's as far as I could get before just giving up. Please, please get this man an editor! Failing that, perhaps Google Translate could be used to translate Peretz's prose into another language - say, Japanese. The Japanese version of the Peretz column could then be put through Google Translate and put into English. I don't image the end English product would give TNR readers anything worse than "in the tactile." Look, I don't mean to trivialize Shalit's experience or the situation in Israel, but these pathetic, disjointed, affected posts are a constant source of embarrassment for TNR and an insult to its readership.

- mtinora@me.com

October 19, 2011 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"but I can't begin to imagine how I'd feel if I had been captured back in the war " Shalit was not "captured" during a war. He was kidnapped. If you have something to say about anything at the very least know your facts. I am very happy that Gilad is back at home, that he slept last night in a warm bed within a hug's distance from his parents. He looks ghastlily emaciated and pale and clearly is not well. His absence was like a wound in the collective hearts of Israelis. The cynical attempt to turn this human (and Jewish) event into political hey by some commenters shows how distant they are from Israeli reality and how little they actually understand what makes the Israeli spirit strong.

- noga1

October 19, 2011 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Right after the announcement of this decision I had dinner with three friends, all Jewish, all big and enthusiastic supporters of Israel, but with decidely different views on matters, two of us more "aggressive" and two of us more "liberal." We had differing views on the exchange but of course to a man we were all profoundly distressed by the prisoners' release for all the reasons so commonly know and understood. One of the vritues of Peretz's piece for me is to illuminate and remind me of how tightly knit is Israeli society when issues transcending ideology and specific political approach assail the country and illuminate and remind me what collective symbolic resonance and fundamental did Shalit's unspeakably despicable kidnapping and confinement havefor this amazing, amazing little country. Also, 1 innocent Israeli soldier traded for 1,000 plus vile terrorists and killers--who Abbas greeted the return of with unmitigated solidarity with them in "the struggle"--are their own grains of sand with which to behold the two different poles of this particular conflicted world.

- basman

October 19, 2011 at 3:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...collective symbolic resonance and fundamental did.. should be: ...collective symbolic resonance and fundamental meaning did...

- basman

October 19, 2011 at 3:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love neither Israel nor the Palestinian non-state, but rather think both to be societies so deeply and foolishly in thrall to their own stories - some ancient and some modern - as to be incapable of making either rational or decent decisions about their respective and joint futures. The exchange of 1000 criminals for one captured soldier (which is how I believe Israelis understand this swap, whether or not I agree) certainly suggests this is true of Israel. Soldiers are unfortunately captured when in war, and one simply does not release common criminals to ransom them. Evidently the freedom of a single Jewish soldier (are not soldiers meant to be at risk?) is more important than all the mayem risked by releasing these thugs into the wild. One must be very wrapped in one's own story to imagine so lopsided exchange is advantageous or just. But it is Hamas and the other Palestinians now celebrating their victory who are the most deluded and foolish here. What does it mean to achieve a victory in which 1000 of your heros are no more valuable than 1 of the criminals who have stolen your land (which, again, is how I believe Hamas sees this, not necessarily how I see it). They can only conclude that their people are individually essentially worthless compared to Israel's, or that their opponents are weak or stupid - the first of which conclusions must surely be both demoralizing and wrong, and the second of which, should they think that direction, will surely bolster their own self-absorbed story, but will serve them ill in the future - for the Israelis are surely neither weak nor stupid in the long run. Nothing of net value will come of this. Both sides while talking to themselves briefly found themselves in intersection and hiccuped some captives to mark the juxtaposition, nothing more.

- IowaBeauty

October 19, 2011 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "Shalit was not "captured" during a war. He was kidnapped. If you have something to say about anything at the very least know your facts." and "The cynical attempt to turn this human (and Jewish) event into political hey by some commenters shows how distant they are from Israeli reality and how little they actually understand what makes the Israeli spirit strong." First of all, I was making an analogy to Shalit's imprisonment and a hypothetical situation if I (or another soldier) had been captured. Shalit was (is?) a soldier, as was I. You may consider it a vast difference between a capture and a kidnapping, but for two uniformed active duty soldiers, the difference is semantic. Second, taking a moment to wish Shalit well - hoping he will be at peace - is hardly making politcal hay out of a horrible situation. Noga, you're obviously a more learned expert on Israel and her plight than I; but try and remember this is no reason to respond to my comment with an ad hominem attack. Try showing just a tiny amount of class, ok? Being, as you implied, so much more in tune than the rest of us goys with Israel's reality and what makes her spirit strong does not mean you need to be an asshole.

- Tristan

October 19, 2011 at 6:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Soldiers are unfortunately captured when in war, and one simply does not release common criminals to ransom them." Iowa, I think the point is that it was more like a criminal or terrorist kidnap, and less like a wartime taking of a prisoner. "They can only conclude that their people are individually essentially worthless compared to Israel's" Indeed, but if they negotiated and agreed to that number, they must also be complicit in the same judgement, no? Or else they are stupid: Hamas guy: We will do the exchange for a thousand! Israeli guy: OK, but are you sure? I mean, 500 might be easier politically for both of us, when you think of the proportions. A thousand gives a strange impression . . . Hamas guy: A thousand or nothing!! Don't come here with your zionist math, trying to confuse us . . .

- ironyroad

October 19, 2011 at 7:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

.../19/2011 - 4:48pm EDT | IowaBeauty...is a rather amazing comment. All questions of love to the side, neither expected nor needed, the attempt at equivalence at every level is an exercise in sheer, politically correct bone- headedness, to say the extremely very least. Who is this person to second guess or criticize the wrenchingly terrible and ultimately tragic decision Israel made, let alone doltishly try to connect that decision to a country, in his stunningly patronizing words, “deeply and foolishly in thrall to (its) own stor(y).” Why does anyone care what he thinks about a country not his own, which he does not love, is indifferent to, should or should not do to alleviate its collective agony over one of its living sons in horrible captivity? Who is this person, so redolent with his own self-presumed wisdom, that he should so arrogantly, in effect, lecture to us about Israel's decision. I can understand someone, regardless of ethnicity or background, having troubled thoughts about the wisdom of Israel’s decision, having a leaning one way or the other. But this person’s unmitigated insensitivity about what a country, Israel, ought or ought note have done here is rather infuriating in its deaf and dumb presumption. To note the sheer callousness animating this person’s need to hear and show himself to be clever and wise, when all this person shows is stone cold obtuseness, note his his imagery of Israel in the fullness of her tragic agony reduced to merely exhibiting spastic reflexiveness, Israel having done nothing more than “hiccuped some captives to mark the juxtaposition, nothing more.” Better on these matters he should have shut the fuck up.

- basman

October 19, 2011 at 7:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I was horrified by the Egyptian interview. Shame on them. And shame on news outlets that compare the lawful incarceration of Palestinian prisoners who've had fair trials, who are allowed contact with family and the world, who are in jail because they committed crimes including mass murder, and the kidnapping and totally unlawful treatment of Gilad Shalit who wasn't even allowed a visit from the Red Cross. Anyway I'm glad he's back and I agree with Burston and others who think Netanyahu did the right thing though the cost is unbearable, but losing Gilad Shalit would have been worse.

- Sophia

October 19, 2011 at 8:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Geez, Iowa....

- Sophia

October 19, 2011 at 8:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tristan, the second comment you quote was not meant for you. Surprised I am that you rushed to assume ownership, though. Read back and try to guess to whose political hey-making I was responding.

- noga1

October 19, 2011 at 8:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Then my apologies, Noga.

- Tristan

October 19, 2011 at 8:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is a report on how the Arab blogosphere reacted to Shalit's release from the dungeon of Hamas hell: "If you followed the release of the Arab prisoners and the Israeli occupation terrorist in the Arab social media yesterday, you would have felt that you inhabited a world that is different from the world that we inhabit in the West. People were outraged at the Western (and some Arab) media obsession with that one Israeli occupation terrorist. Many commented (rightly) that people should see Israeli soldiers as they are: and not as they appear in Mossad heroic propaganda movies. Many commented how dumb he seemed. People were furious at the Egyptian journalist who interviewed him (notice that the New York Times only commented on Israeli reaction and devoted one whole article to Israeli public reactions to the interview while it did not bother to even address Arab public reactions to the same interview*): they were furious because she seemed too polite with him and even congratulated him on his release and acted as if he was some tourist who innocently wandered off in our lands and got lost. They were so many tweets making fun of him and of his name and to the attention to him. Many paid tribute to various Palestinian prisoners released. I listened to a BBC report yesterday: they are reminding me of US media lately. They reported as if all released prisoners were Hamas members, while many were Fath (around 50) and others belonged to PFLP and DFLP and some independent." This approving report was given by my favourite Arab blogger, Prof. AbuKhalil, professor of political science at California State University, Stanislaus and visiting professor at UC, Berkeley. He also goes on to assure his readers that: ""Shalit also said he would be very happy if remaining Palestinians held in Israeli prisons were freed to return to their own families, but that he hoped "they won't go back to fighting against Israel." Oh, they will go back to fighting Israel. Their sons and daughters will be fighting Israel, and they will hopefully witness the demise of Israel and Zionism. Only then they will rest. Even the man in his 80s who was released: if he can, he will also be going back to fighting Israel. I can assure you. It is not only the land anymore. All that you have done to our people is registered in notebooks, as Darwish wrote. And there will be justice and accountability. " I'm bringing these quotes of such high-quality hatred by way of doing a service to the iowabeauty. It makes her own comments seem almost loving towards Israelis.

- noga1

October 19, 2011 at 9:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman - Wow! I've been called many things in ad hominem attacks over the years, but I don't believe anyone has ever packed quite so much into a single paragraph. Congratulations on that. I have but two comments in response: First, language like "the fullness of [Israel's] tragic agony" in reference to this particular episode, by suggesting an entire national identity in "tragic agony" over a single captive soldier, certainly suggests to me a self absorption with a story about the particular value of Jewish lives. Maybe that's what it means to be a Jewish state. As for who I am to say what I say. I'm a subscriber - I pay money to be able to read and comment here. I'm a citizen and taxpayer in a country from which Israel clearly expects to be able to claim very broad support - which it gets - notwithstanding Israel's occasional defiance of my country's and the UN's stated policies. Israel clearly feels it has a right to know how this nation should react to their situation; I'm happy to return the favor. Finally, I'm someone with relatives (by law) and colleagues who are Jewish and live in Israel, so I am party to their thoughts both Israel, Palestine, and the US. I would claim that in this country, one needs no more than that to have the right to an opinion. I don't begrudge you yours.

- IowaBeauty

October 19, 2011 at 9:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Freedom of expression is indeed one of our most precious liberties. I encourage everyone here who's on Facebook to like the page of the Committee to Protect Journalists, which posts dispiriting updates like the news earlier today that Venezuela had fined its last remaining critical TV network more than $2 million for coverage of the country's deadly prison riots this summer. Or the dispatch yesterday that Iran had arrested four journalists who work for reformist newspapers to be charged with crimes against the state. Compare the silence regarding these totalitarian measures with the uproar over the Knesset's (wrongful) efforts to create civil penalties for those who voice support for boycotts. Such is the hallmark of cultural relativism: different standards for different peoples.

- drheingold

October 19, 2011 at 10:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad, good rebuttal and funny too.

- arnon

October 19, 2011 at 11:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

... Wow! I've been called many things in ad hominem attacks over the years, but I don't believe anyone has ever packed quite so much into a single paragraph. Congratulations on that... A sincere thanks. ...I would claim that in this country, one needs no more than that to have the right to an opinion. I don't begrudge you yours... Let me be clearer: I don't mean to suggest that you aren't entitled to your opinion. I just think that yours is as bad as I assert it is.

- basman

October 19, 2011 at 11:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think ironyroad greatly underestimates Hamas' intelligence. They have "street smarts", that is, Arab- street smarts. They know exactly what they are doing.

- noga1

October 20, 2011 at 8:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

[former]Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service, and, imo, he always posts very insightful analyses at ATimes on South and Central Asia. I just read his "Shalit: Israel wins, but it's only half-time" Oct 20, 2011 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MJ20Ak01.html and thought I would offer the link for anyone wanting to consider how Israel's disproportionate exchange of 1,027 for ONE might be a paradigm shift. I am assuming MK has his facts when he claims that most of the released prisoners are being relocated to Syria and Qatar. I tend to agree with his point about how this helps Israel with Egypt, but mostly appreciate the thought that this disproportionate exchange may have given Israel, at minimum, a restoration of cold peace, and even more meaning to Gilad Shalit's unimaginable ordeal . yes, I am troubled by MKB's concluding point "...The grim realities will begin to resurface. Netanyahu needs to make some important decisions in immediate terms as to how to garner the current positive outcome so as to perpetuate it. The lifting of the blockade of Gaza could be one such step. The heart of the matter is that there has been an easing of tensions, but it needs to be followed through." But, that is not the sole 'next step' option. Whenever I read MKB, I am always reminded India invented chess :)

- K2K

October 20, 2011 at 9:38am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, I'm very happy that I don't have to play chess against Hamas. It puzzles me, however, that MK considers it relevant that tensions with Hamas have eased and that he suggests a lifting of the blockade. That makes me think that he just doesn't understand the game Hamas is playing any better than a Tom Friedman or a Roger Cohen. I am deeply pleased that Shalit is free, despite the enormous costs. But I hope that no one deludes themselves into believing that Hamas has been emotionally swayed by Israel's actions and that peace is just a handshake away. We know that once they are done passing around the candy and shooting into the air, they'll be getting back to their holy work of murdering and maiming Israelis.

- willjames77

October 20, 2011 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Freedom of expression is indeed one of our most precious liberties. I encourage everyone here who's on Facebook to like the page of the Committee to Protect Journalists, which posts dispiriting updates like the news earlier today that Venezuela had fined its last remaining critical TV network more than $2 million for coverage of the country's deadly prison riots this summer. Or the dispatch yesterday that Iran had arrested four journalists who work for reformist newspapers to be charged with crimes against the state." Well said. Better yet, donate at https://cpj.org/about/donate-online.php

- IowaBeauty

October 20, 2011 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

willjames: as I mentioned, MKB does not usually does not jump out of his Central/South Asia area of expertise. So, he makes a stab at Hamas because he has to include them in this, and perhaps he has some insight based on the role of Egypt and Qatar. Who really knows what Egypt's Tantawi thinks ought to be done about Gaza? If I was Tantawi, I would want the Gaza offshore gasfields for Egypt (which would require Egyptian naval security), to prevent a seventh attack on Egypt's gas pipeline to Israel and Jordan, to restore the cold peace in the Sinai - before Egypt goes bankrupt and the food riots start - and certainly before the USA and Saudis/GCC decide to seize control of the Suez Canal.

- K2K

October 20, 2011 at 4:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I think ironyroad greatly underestimates Hamas' intelligence. They have 'street smarts', that is, Arab- street smarts. They know exactly what they are doing." I don't entirely disagree. But I wasn't underestimating so much as thinking out a counter to IB's statement about relative valuing of individual lives and how the proportions might be seen. There are a couple of ways that Palestinians could regard, and Hamas could spin, the exchange. 1) This is a major victory, thousand of us and only one of theirs. One! 2) This is a victory, but it reveals just how many Palestinians are imprisoned if they can let go a thousand. 3) This is good in some ways, but somehow it makes it seem as if one Israeli soldier is worth a thousand Palestinians. 4 and this would be Iowa's) This is actually humiliating, because it reveals that the Israelis think nothing of our worth -- they'll actually hand over a thousand of us as if we were small change. Although #4 might strike one as an inevitable consideration, it ultimately seems a very subtle understanding of the exchange and, as I noted, also makes Hamas complicit in the equation. I think that both Hamas and the PA will try to keep 1) and 2) at the top of the list. Enthusiastic declarations of victory have the advantage of simplicity and avoiding difficult questions.

- ironyroad

October 20, 2011 at 4:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well yes. We have the right to express ourselves. But IowaBeauty, with respect, your comments are nasty. Nobody's claiming that Jewish life is "chosen" or "superior," because the Israelis choose not to leave a soldier on the battlefield. The entire army of Israel is a citizen army. What should they do? Really I am surprised at you. Please read, because you sound just a wee bit like Deborah Orr (shudder): http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/the-guardians-almost-comical-nastiness/247073/

- Sophia

October 20, 2011 at 8:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There's another point to this. If people don't take EACH life seriously, then how can we ever stop taking massive numbers of lives, either in war, or indirectly by neglect? OF COURSE being a Jewish person means thinking a Jewish life is valuable. All life is valuable, that's a keystone of Jewish philosophy isn't it? We don't live in the afterlife. We don't think that we're gonna die and go to heaven, we think life ON THIS PLANE should be protected, that life itself should be revered. So?

- Sophia

October 20, 2011 at 8:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

iowabeauty's perverted thinking is just that, Sophia. It's kind of perverse that you should feel obliged to counter her grotesque arguments with rational answers. It's an exercise in futility and it is demeaning. I'm surprised at ironyroad that he attributes to her the capacity for "nuanced understanding". There is nothing "nuanced" about her malevolent sneer. The indifference she exhibits is of the same order as this sentiment: "On 11 January 2009, Abu Marzuk, Deputy Chief of the Hamas Political Ministry, told the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat that: "Shalit may have been wounded, and he may not have been. The subject no longer interests us. We are not interested in his well-being at all, and we are not giving him any special guard since he is as good as a cat or less."[89]" I'm rather an absolutist when it comes to freedom of speech. I'm glad that IB is free to make her opinions known on these pages, and to have these words bear witness to her irrational hatreds. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

- NR165279

October 20, 2011 at 10:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

10/20/2011 - 10:06pm EDT | NR165279 Sorry. That was I speaking. I forgot to switch back from the access mode.

- noga1

October 20, 2011 at 10:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I don't think I was attributing nuanced understanding to IB so much as saying that the notion (expressed in my 4)) that the proportions of the exchange should troubling to Palestinians is too complex for normal political rhetoric -- Hamas would definitely refute that notion, but my guess is that Palestinians in general won't see the implication. To put it another way, it would be remarkable and indeed welcome, but unfortunately very unlikely, if enough Palestinians suddenly thought, self-critically, "I wonder if this exchange says something very revealing about the difference between our two societies -- they took risks releasing so many in order to get their guy back. Perhaps we should think about why we cheer thousands and they welcome one."

- ironyroad

October 20, 2011 at 10:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I didn't read all the posts above, so someone may have linked to this little antisemitic gem: http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2011/10/either-orr.html "Either-Orr You may think you've plumbed the depths of human stupidity and blind prejudice, but you never have. It is bottomless. Deborah Orr is of the opinion that the exchange of Gilad Shalit's freedom for that of more than a thousand Palestinian prisoners underwrites 'the obscene idea that Israeli lives are more important than Palestinian lives'. She asks: 'who is surprised really, to learn that Netanyahu sees one Israeli's freedom as a fair exchange for the freedom of so many Palestinians?' By accepting the terms of the exchange, she contends, Hamas display their eagerness 'to accept a transfer that tacitly acknowledges what so many Zionists believe – that the lives of the chosen are of hugely greater consequence than those of their unfortunate neighbours'. I urge upon you this brief thought experiment. The Israelis offer to free a single Palestinian prisoner - one, let us say, not responsible for terrorist murder, and in that regard just like Shalit - for the young Israeli hostage. Hamas's leaders deliberate. Do they hold out for a better 'rate of exchange'? Orr do they just agree, 'OK, guys, why not - one for one?' I won't insult anyone's intelligence further by suggesting the result. But it is 'the lives of the chosen' - she means Jews - that are of 'hugely greater consequence'. Yes, indeed. That has been the world's opinion to date, has it not? - and is still the opinion of those many who find room in their consciences for the idea that murdering Jews is understandable in the given circumstances." Yes, the Jews care more about their own lives than those of people that have been trying to kill them for more than hundred years. They also cared more about their own lives than those of the Nazis who exterminated them in the death camps. That must make them evil. And those who hold such noxious views don't think they are bigoted.

- arnon

October 20, 2011 at 11:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Deborah Orr exhibits a kind of sneering hatred that is shared by many of the Guardian's writers and readers. It's disturbing to see that England has given birth to such a slew of vicious, smarmy journalists and commentators. Their hatred of Jews is positively medieval. Perhaps, since they are no longer able to express their loathing of Jews as freely as in days of yore, they feel constrained to disguise it as political indignation. How else can anyone make sense of their passionate identification with the cause of the Palestinians, with whose culture they have so very little in common? And their inability to ever recognize the good in anything that Israel does?

- willjames77

October 21, 2011 at 5:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see what you mean, ironyroad. Willjames, "Their hatred of Jews is positively medieval." Indeed. They consider it a mark of their impeccable virtue, hating Israel to this extent. It's sheer, unadulterated malevolence, dressed up as the only possible moral attitude. This event, of Gilad's release, seems to have made that very clear and no longer deniable. It's as if they are disappointed with Hamas for releasing Gilad, whose absence caused such anguish to Israelis. It's as if they are throwing a tantrum that this source of enjoyment --seeing Israelis suffer -- was taken from them.

- noga1

October 21, 2011 at 6:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I saw a film in Florence this summer called "This is England" which gave me some perspective on just how dismal things are in the land that once ruled the waves. Meanwhile, glad to see that your relation to irony has weathered the storms of misunderstanding. (A double entendre, perhaps, but hardly ironic.)

- willjames77

October 21, 2011 at 7:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps someday (soon) we shall see how this disproportionate exchange fits into the bigger issues of how Egypt deals with Gaza, the Sinai, and the cold peace with Israel. noga: it may be a microscopic sign of Hamas-progress that Abu Marzuk referred to Gilad Shalit "as good as a cat or less" in that the Egyptians once considered cats to be gods, and certainly better than the usual rat and/or bacteria language. Just trying to look on the positive side; which is also why I only read UK Telegraph for signs of British intelligence. BTW, just saw a trailer for new film "The Iron Lady" where Meryl Streep plays Margaret Thatcher.

- K2K

October 21, 2011 at 11:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

willjames: My relation to irony sometimes can create unforeseeable complications but my relation to ironyroad is, to adapt what Martin Amis once said about Hitchens following a very stormy and public exchange of mutual recriminations: The affection between us is like the month of March, when sunny days are numbered but always expected, and freezing temperatures are always greeted as a thoroughly unexpected and unpleasant surprise, though God only knows why; It is after all, the month of March! K2K: I can see the progress from designating Jews as rats and bacteria to designating them as cats as indeed a harbinger of better things to come. I will even go one further and remind you that unlike dogs, cats are not so abhorred by Muslims as I read somewhere that Muhammad was fond of them. So, if you factor this little bit of info into the equation you might even conclude that Abu Marzuk was actually expressing not only great but also religiously-dictated, affection towards their captive.

- noga1

October 21, 2011 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A sunny and mildly warm day here in Tennessee! Although to be honest my office is a heck of a lot colder than the outside world. Sniffle. The curious thing is that Deborah Orr, trapped in the poisonous swirl of her prejudices, almost grasps exactly that point I was making about relative values between Israel and Hamas but just cannot see it, even though she practically puts it in words herself. K2K -- that sounds like revenge for Emma Thompson playing the Hillary Clinton-like character in Primary Colors.

- ironyroad

October 21, 2011 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: I was going to add that bit about Muslim abhorrence of for dogs, but you did it better. I continue to believe that the true global conflict is between dog-lovers and dog-haters, but cats actually rule the planet :) irony: huh? You mean revenge for casting a British actress for an American? I just watched Primary Colors again (free cable!), and thought Emma Thompson was superb as Hillary. Meryl Streep might have been even better in Primary Colors. Helen Mirren and Aussie Cate Blanchett can not get every British historical role :) The Iron Lady is about the 1982 Falklands War when Thatcher was 57, and, Streep has the Thatcher nose. Otherwise I might have gone with Imelda Staunton. sorry to again get sidetracked by films. no disrespect meant to Gilad Shalit. I use films to block intrusive memories, new and old. This past Tuesday, Moneyball did the trick for me! Maybe Shalit will find his own way to create new mental images to block the pain and trauma of the past five years.

- K2K

October 21, 2011 at 7:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close