Chillul Tefila Bifarhesia, as well as halachicly challenged verbiage and dress, are external manifestations of a critical lack of personal yiras shomayim which has lethal consequences.
The painful history of soldiers who have fallen into the hands of terror organizations did not begin with Gilad Shalit. The list of soldiers kidnapped by terrorists is long and merciless: Ron Arad; Givati fighters Rachamim Alshich and Yosef Fink; the soldiers kidnapped from Har Dov – Omar Suweid, Benny Avraham and Adi Avitan; Nissim Toledano; Ilan Sa’adon; Avi Sassportas; Yaron Chai; Nachshon Wachsman; Aryeh Frankental; Ehud Goldwasser; and Eldad Regev. With the exception of Wachsman, Israel entered into extended negotiations to bring these soldiers home. But not one of them came back alive. Israel is currently employing the same method on behalf of Gilad Shalit.
Until the reprehensible Jibril deal of 1985, the last time that soldiers returned alive from terrorist captivity, Israel’s policy regarding captives had been completely different. The first option was military action. Sometimes that action failed – as was the case with the hostage children of Avivim. Sometimes military action succeeded – as in Entebbe. Generally, no negotiations were conducted. And if there were negotiations, the price paid for the release of prisoners was reasonable – as prescribed by Jewish law. Israel paid for dead bodies with dead bodies.
We can certainly claim that the Jibril deal and the wholesale release of terrorists that ensued was the main catalyst for the first Arab intifada that began a short time afterward. The number of Israeli citizens either directly killed by the newly released murderers or indirectly killed by the murderous momentum created by that release is frighteningly disproportionate to the number of soldiers that came home as a result of the deal.
Paradoxically, in the 24 years that have passed since Israel decided to pay “any price” to save its captive soldiers, it has not brought one soldier home alive. But it has brought about the cruel deaths of almost 2,000 Israeli citizens – men, women and children.
“Any price” means all the terrorists imprisoned in Israel. It does not mean military action because, after all, war is negative. So “any price” is not any price at all. I am not sure that the protesters for Gilad Shalit would be willing to bomb Gaza and deal with all the international condemnations and boycotts that we would have to face until Hamas would release him. Israel isn’t even willing to cut off the electricity in Gaza to bring Shalit home. “Any price” is really a euphemism for any pacifist-type action that will appease the extreme left while affording media-star status to the politicians who pay it.
If we take the facts of the past 24 years into account, we can safely say that whoever demands to free Shalit “at any price” is actually sentencing him to death. I hope that I am wrong, but the real meaning of “any price” is that there is no price. The terrorists understand that time is on their side. The crueler they are, the more they conceal information. And even if they, God forbid, murder their captive and bargain for his body – the price that they will exact from Israel will only rise.
Furthermore, due to the fact that the price Israel is willing to pay for Shalit does not include war and the fact that the continued incarceration of terrorists (in luxury conditions in Israeli prisons) does not bother the enemy very much, the optimal choice as far as they are concerned is to perpetuate the current status quo. After all, the situation whereby Israel is daily humiliated and demeaned will end when Shalit is released. So why release him?
Since the first Lebanon war, the Left has fitted Israel with rose-colored glasses that see war as illegitimate and shameful – no matter what. From then on, preserving the lives of Israel’s soldiers has become the supreme value. It was the Jibril deal that caused the enemy to realize that they don’t have to return captive soldiers alive. From the time that Israel declared that its main goal is to “return its soldiers home alive and well,” no captive has returned.
Something else happened 24 years ago. Israel betrayed and abandoned its agent, Jonathan Pollard, to American captivity. There is an intrinsic symmetry between Israel’s full cooperation with Pollard’s captors and our inability to bring other captives home. Israel is one body, whether in Israel or in the Diaspora. When the betrayal virus attacks one organ, it quickly spreads throughout the body.
Jonathan Pollard saved us from a nuclear Iraq because we are Jews. But we have abandoned him because we prefer to see ourselves as Israelis and to see him as an American traitor. As soon as we turned our backs on our Jewish identity, we lost the ability to remain loyal to our Israeli identity as well.
About the Author:
You must log in to post a comment.
Ahmadinejad may plan to reveal proof that the 2009 elections were rigged if his candidate’s registration for presidential candidacy is not accepted.
With a ‘friend’ like Erdogan, Obama’s policy toward Syria, Iran, the advance of revolutionary Islamism, and the Israel-Palestinian “peace process,” is in serious trouble.
The media loved Obama, but it discovered early on that he did not love it back.
How far the PA will go to present the lie as the truth and the truth as a lie? Its claim that Jesus was a Palestinian is old hat. But now the “resurrection” also refers to “the Palestinian state.”
The progressive consolidation imagines that organization can contain the messier side of man.
The Russian Yakhont missiles already delivered to Syria threaten Israel Navy ships carrying out vital missions in the Mediterranean.
Islamism represents the transformation of Islamic faith into a political ideology.
America could be said to be building a united front against Iran, but at what price?
The Japanese do not feel the need to apologize to Muslims for the negative way in which they relate to Islam.
Palestinian youths from Hebron, though, who met with Israelis near Bethlehem to share their problems and insights have been forced to issue a statement distancing themselves from the meeting.
Benghazi isn’t likely to keep Hillary out of the Democratic field in 2016, but after 2008, she is justifiably paranoid.
The contractors received the land at a bargain basement price, moved the prices up to 1.8 million NIS and pocketed one million NIS per apartment.
Many of my fellow college students are quick to voice their acceptance of their LGBT friends, but they turn up their noses and frown slightly when they speak of a Hasid.
The growing revelations that the Obama State Department watered down public statements on the attack in order to cleanse them of any mention of al Qaeda and terrorism is a travesty.
We must confront Islamist groups with what Prime Minister David Cameron referred to as “muscular liberalism.”
Israel’s government did not want to liberate Jerusalem. Or to be more specific, the Labor and National Religious Party ministers did not want to liberate Jerusalem. “Who needs that whole Vatican?” Defense Minister Moshe Dayan explained at the time.
The following is my response to a woman who criticized me for visiting the Temple Mount. In a letter to me, she claimed that I broke the law and irresponsibly provoked Arab anger. She suggested that my actions should conform to the will of the “majority.”
It is always easiest to blame the rest of the world and not to make an accounting of your own ideology.
Why throw years of friendly cooperation into the trashcan?
The struggle for Israeli sovereignty on the Temple Mount symbolizes humanity’s struggle in the transition from enslavement to liberty.
Do you really think that retreat from the very foundations of our lives will bring us quiet?
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/why-isnt-gilad-shalit-home/2009/07/15/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online:
No related posts.