A Better Deal Sought to Shalit

The Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot doesn't want to see the same kind of one-sided deal struck for the return of Gilad Shalit, held now for two years by Hamas in Gaza.

It says a deal like that recently struck with Hizballah will only encourage further attempts by terrorists to seize Israel soldiers, and that releasing terrorists in exchange for soldiers risks fresh attacks against Israeli civilians:

When we say that Gilad Shalit must be released at 'any price', we mean the entire price that we will pay. We will set murderers free. We will cause many of them to go back to killing us. We will give impetus to encouraging terrorism and we will go back to dying on buses, in malls and in communities on the periphery. This is as insane as it is immoral".

The editors suggest that "doing everything" means, "tightening the siege on the Gaza Strip" until, "they understand that Gilad Shalit is not a bargaining chip but a bone in the throat, not an asset but a liability". "Suddenly" the paper suggests, "it will dawn on them that we are not suckers but a country that gets nervous when one of its soldiers is alive in a hole in Gaza and they continue to play with us". The editors defend the foregoing as "The moral, security and logical step that must be taken on behalf of Gilad Shalit and us. It is less risky than releasing hundreds of murderers and it is more moral seven-fold". The paper avers that "If we do not change the rules of their brutal game, we will continue to be kidnapped and blackmailed. We must try and release Gilad Shalit at any price, but the price must be theirs".

(courtesy: Israel Government Press Office)

Release Terrorist Earned a Degree in Prison

Samir Kuntar, 45, the Lebanese terrorist who had been jailed 29 years in Israel for shooting dead an Israeli man in front of his four-year-old daughter and then killing the girl by crushing her head between a rock and the butt of his rifle, was freed today by Israel, along with four other terrorists, in return for two dead IDF soldiers.

The Associated Press reports that, while in Israeli prison, Kuntar learned Hebrew and earned a degree in sociology. It's remarkable that he had such opportunities in Israel. Certainly, he would never have had them while a terrorist in Lebanon.

Wouldn't it be great if Kuntar returned home and said to his countrymen, "You know, I am grateful to the Israelis for teaching me a foreign language and allowing me to learn and earn a degree. Those 29 years taught me that Israelis are humans, too, and we should respect them."

I know. Dream on.

Apparently, as recently as this year, Kuntar wrote to Hizballah leader Nasrallah and told him his place will be "at the battlefront." He has also said he will not apologize for his murderous actions and that "the struggle continues."

Israel-Hizballah "Prisoner Swap"

The Wall Street Journal on Monday reported on its front page that Hizballah and Israel "will swap prisoners" on Wednesday under a deal mediated by the United Nations.

At first read, most would agree this sounds like terrific news --and how good of the UN to help, right? -- but it is not. Perhaps for brevity, the Journal omitted the crucial fact that the two soldiers Israel is to receive from the deal are dead. Hizballah, on the other hand, will get five live "fighters," plus 199 bodies of Lebanese and Palestinian others, according to a report in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz.

For some Israelis, this is a victory, as Israel, once again, shows how much it values and respects human life by "bringing home" its dead soldiers, Goldwasser and Regev. Their families reportedly are thrilled at the deal and lobbied hard for it. I sympathize with what they are going through and probably would act similarly were I in their shoes, but their position nevertheless is selfish, for it puts at risk the security of Israel and lives of other IDF soldiers.

After celebrations in Lebanon wind down, Hizballah will get busy planning, if it is not already, its next cross-border ambush to seize a fresh batch of Israeli soldiers. If such "swaps" were unachieveable, Hizballah would not try to achieve them. Sure, Israel will welcome its dead soldiers home but, soon, more will be taken, dead or alive, never to be seen alive again. This is too high a cost that Israeli should no longer be expected to pay. It's hard to say "no" to such deals, but ultimately it is the right thing to do, because eventually the terrorists would learn that kidnapping attempts do not pay off. If Israeli soldiers fall captive to Hizballah, only proportional trades, in both size and mortality, should be considered.

Bulldozer Terrorist Attack Was Preventable

In an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post, Yaakov Katz writes that today's attack by a Arab resident of Jerusalem driving a bulldozer would have been "difficult to foil." Israel's Chief of Police, David Cohen, said "There's no way to control a single person if he wants to commit terrorism."

However, according to earlier reports, the terrorist -- Husam Taysir Dwayat, a 30-year-old father of two from Sur Bahir in southeast Jerusalem -- was carrying an Israeli identity card and had a criminal record due to previous criminal activities, mainly drug felonies, as well as furniture theft. Had Dwayat not been issued an Israeli residency document in the first place or had his documents been revoked upon conviction of a crime, or in this case several, he would not have been legally employable in Jerusalem and would have been unlikely to have had access to the bulldozer used in the attack.

If Arabs fortunate enough to hold Israeli residency permits commit crimes or other violations, then those permits should be suspended or revoked, because they have proven themselves to be security risks. If Israel does not now conduct a thorough background check on Arabs applying for or holding residence permits, it should start to do so immediately. Having a criminal record like today's terrorist did ought to be immediate grounds for disqualification for such permits and the employment privileges inside Israel that accompany them.

AP Misunderstands Bush Palestine Policy

AP reporter Jennifer Loven, reporting from Sharm al-Sheikh, Egypt, where President Bush is meeting Arab leaders after visiting Israel, said that, in a speech to the Israeli Knesset the other day marking Israel's 60th birthday, Bush barely mentioned the Palestinians' plight and foresaw a Palestinian state only in 2068. She then quotes several Arab leaders and officials sharply criticizing the speech.

In his speech, Bush said he envisioned that the Palestinians "will have the homeland they have long dreamed of and deserved -- a democratic state that is governed by law, and respects human rights, and rejects terror."

With these remarks, Bush has gone further than any other Arab leader in supporting a Palestinian state. How so? Because of the conditions he's placed on it. A Palestinian state that resembles its Arab neighbors, where the people cannot freely vote for their leaders who stay in office for lifetimes and where violence reigns, like seen most recently in Lebanon, will do the Palestinians, and the rest of us, much harm and little good. Unlike Ms. Loven would have us believe, Bush understands and sympathizes with the Palestinians' plight very well and very much so because he wants to save them from the failure leadership and sad predicament that most of their Arab bretheren must endure.

Press Asking Wrong Questions on Syria

At a press conference on the White House lawn on Tuesday, the President was asked repeatedly why his Administration had waited so long to deliver a full intelligence briefing to Capitol Hill about last September's Israeli air strike on a suspected Syrian nuclear facility. According to US and Israeli intelligence, the facility was constructed with the help of North Korea and most likely would have begun shortly to process nuclear fuel, possibly weapons-grade.

The press were allowing Syria, and North Korea, off the hook by diverting the crux of the issue. The real news is not why the White House rightfully judged it in our, and Israel's, national security interest to delay a full briefing. The real story -- the story with the dire consequences -- is why Syria, despite its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations, "concealed the very existence as well as the purpose of the installation and repeatedly denied the facts to the world and to the [International Atomic Energy Agency]," as an Israeli analyst put it. The Washington Post agreed, adding that Syria was suspiciously quick to demolish and bury the nuclear reactor's remains, actions which the Post said "require explanation."

Members of the media, then, should be pressing the Syrians, not President Bush, for answers and explanations. Trying to create tension and conflict between the White House and Congress reflects poorly on their responsibility to cover the real news.

President Carter's Meeting with Hamas Leader Mishal

I don't know for sure why former U.S. President Carter is such a nuisance when it comes to the Middle East. I can't read the man's mind. But I suspect there are two reasons: 1) he continually seeks to be relevant in retirement and 2) he views the Palestinians as the underdogs and will do anything he can to make life harder for Israel and U.S.-Israel relations. I'm not ready to condemn that man as an anti-semite, though his increasingly venomous hostility toward Israel -- most recently, calling it an Aparteid state -- suggests he just may be.

Anyways, this week, Carter plans to meet with the leader of Hamas, Khaled Mishal, in Damascus, Syria. The Syrians allow Mish'al, and many other Hamas leaders, to live there and conduct their business freely. From Damascus, they plan Hamas strategy, coordinate Hamas training in Lebanon and Iran, and from time to time, approval specific terrorist attacks.

Carter gave an interview about his planned meeting to ABC News, which is scheduled to air on the network's Sunday morning news program. Carter reportedly will say that his meeting is OK because, some day, Israel itself will have to sit down with the group to negotiate peace. That's nonsense. There's no reason to legitimize Hamas and give it a say in peace negotiations. The right policy is to isolate Hamas and pursue its destruction. If the world sticks to that policy, it will happen.

Carter also reported says that he'll "try to induce [Hamas] to stop all attacks against innocent civilians in Israel." What about the group's attacks beyond the Green Line -- in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem? Carter views them as permissible likely because he views these areas as illegally occupied. However, they are disputed areas, according to UN resolutions, subject to negotiation. Carter is prejudging their status by blessing terrorist attacks on Israelis there. And what about that Hamas bombing a few years back in a cafeteria at Hebrew University in "East" Jerusalem that claimed Americans as casualties? Carter certainly wouldn't approve of such an attack, would he? Well, he just did.

Carter says he's "been meeting with Hamas leaders for years." And what good has it done? The group isn't any more flexible in its positions, amenable to unity with Fatah, or ready to agree to a ceasefire.

Carter's meetings serve only two purposes: 1) to bolster his own sense of worth and utility, and 2) to lend political legitimacy to a terrorist group. The world should reject his interference as counterproductive.