Israel and the US share similar dilemmas about swapping captive terrorists for soldiers being held hostage.
By YOSSI MELMANGilad Schalit walks with his father, Noam, alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak at an official welcome at Tel Nof air base, October 18, 2011(photo credit: REUTERS)
Both came from small, isolated communities – one from the Upper Galilee in Israel, the other from Idaho in the US.Both were soldiers born in 1986 – the Israeli served in an armored corps battalion, the American as an infantryman.Both were held in miserable conditions in captivity by bitter and cruel enemies, and subjected to psychological pressure and brainwashing. Both were taken prisoner in dubious circumstances without resistance – the Israeli did not fire a single bullet at his Hamas captors from Gaza and questions remain whether he fell asleep while guarding his tank mates; the American probably deserted and left to be with the Taliban in Afghanistan.Both were held captive for about five years and eventually were released in prisoner swaps between their respective governments and terrorist groups in deals brokered by third parties – the Egyptians in the Israeli- Hamas case and the Qataris in the American- Taliban exchange.For several years, both governments refused to bend to the terrorists’ demands and rejected proposed deals until the leaders of the two countries, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and US President Barack Obama, changed their minds and, in identical U-turns, acceded to an exchange of prisoners.The swaps were extremely controversial and generated high emotions and heated political debate. IDF private (promoted upon his release to sergeant major) Gilad Shalit was released in October 2011 in exchange for 1,024 Palestinian terrorists – hundreds of whom were serving life imprisonment for mass murder. American private (also promoted to sergeant) Bowe Robert Bergdahl was released in May 2014 in exchange for five senior Taliban officials.But, here the similarities end and the differences, rooted in precedents and national ethos, begin.After crossing over from Gaza, Shalit was received personally by Netanyahu and later treated to a hero’s welcome in his village. The Israeli media were ecstatic and frantic with live broadcasts on radio and television. Upon his release, Israelis swept their differences under the rug.Very few politicians (notably from the far right), military men or the usually critical journalists dared raise questions about the wisdom of the deal, the heavy price paid by the state to see Shalit free, or the unclear circumstances of his capture.His tank and platoon comrades refused to divulge the truth about what happened the night Shalit was captured. He became a celebrity invited to top parties, was an item in gossip columns and a columnist for Yedioth Ahronoth – the influential mass circulation daily.Bergdahl, on the other hand, was handed over by the Taliban to US Delta Force soldiers and flown to an American air base in Germany for medical treatment and intelligence debriefings. The US media was not present and the American government did not release any images of the swap.The only footage made public was from the propaganda department of the Taliban, which published a video recording of its version of the handover.Unlike in Israel after the Shalit release, the American public remains highly polarized and refuses to bury its tough questions surrounding the circumstances of Bergdahl’s capture.Bergdahl’s comrades rushed to open the closet and reveal his skeletons. They informed questioners that Bergdahl was not taken prisoner during a combat operation, but rather laid down his weapon, walked away from his unit and disappeared. For some of them, he is simply a deserter.Before his mysterious disappearance, Bergdahl wrote e-mails to his parents saying he was disillusioned with the war effort and bothered by the treatment of Afghans by American soldiers. He said, in his e-mail, he was ashamed to be an American.According to The New York Times, a military investigation showed that on the night he went missing, Bergdahl left a note saying he was leaving to start a new life. Fox News reported that the letter said Bergdahl wanted to renounce his citizenship. It is possible Bergdahl will be court-martialed, so it is very doubtful Obama will greet him at the White House.“The US government has a strict policy against providing any value to hostage takers in return for American citizens,” former assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor Juan Zarate, who served in George W. Bush’s administration, relates in e-mail exchanges with The Jerusalem Report. Zarate, the author of “Treasury’s War,” knows how the US has fought terrorism financially. He now serves as senior adviser at the US Center for Strategic and International Studies, and is a special consultant to CBS News. In his previous role, Zarate was responsible for developing and overseeing the effective implementation of the US government’s counter-terrorism strategy.“This is a long-standing rule intended to dissuade the taking of American citizens abroad, along with the promise that the US will bring to justice those who take Americans hostage,” he asserts. “This is also why the US government tries to do everything possible to minimize the value of taking US citizens hostage, which usually explains the government’s silence as to what may be happening with particular cases. The [White House] Rose Garden announcement in this case broke with that tradition and practice in an unfortunate way.”What are the differences in the approach to clinch deals with terrorists between Israel and the US? “Unlike, perhaps in Israel, there is a general and fundamental public and political opprobrium in the United States to negotiating with terrorist organizations.This may prove to be a distinction driven by geography or the types of organizations involved, but there is sense that the US should not negotiate with terrorists and hostage takers.”In Israel, the families are very vociferous and serve as a pressure group. Is this the case in the US?“Families are often public advocates for the return of their loved ones and serve to prompt more activist government actions, often clashing with the government during periods of deep frustration and perceived lack of progress. The lack of public and political attention on cases often prompts families to take a more aggressive public posture.“Some families also take it upon themselves to attempt to resolve these situations outside of US-government channels, which can also cause friction and frustration. In general, the US public is sympathetic to the families and their voices are heard, but their voices are not dispositive drivers for US policy.”What about the media? “The media in the US tends to be less focused on US hostages, beyond moments of immediate interest or crisis. This is why the advocacy of parents and families in the US becomes so important to them – to maintain pressure and attention on their particular cases.“There are Americans in custody or who have been taken hostage around the world (e.g., North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Afghanistan), but most Americans would not know this or any of the details. This fading of attention strikes me as a major distinction between the US and Israel, where the nation seems to remain focused on missing Israeli soldiers and citizens.”Another former US official, who also served a Republican administration and is identified with conservative causes, is Elliott Abrams. A lawyer and former diplomat who served in senior positions in the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, he is now with the Council on Foreign Relations.“I don’t think this is a partisan issue, and many Democrats are very unhappy with the Obama Administration, even if they are, of course, quieter in their public criticism,” he writes in an e-mail interview with The Report. “The anger in Congress is not manufactured by the press, nor is the anger of many veterans. Moreover, people are angry because National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Bergdahl served with ‘honor and distinction’ when she must have known he was probably a deserter. The press is just reporting; the errors are those of the White House.”Can you understand the desire to trade Bergdahl? “Yes, I can certainly understand the desire to trade for Bergdahl if it was believed his health was deteriorating fast. I am troubled by the price paid – putting five top Taliban leaders back into action – and by administration misrepresentations about how he came to be in the Taliban’s hands. Many former servicemen say they are very angry about the deal and about the loss of life incurred in searching for him over the past five years. In Congress, members are angry that they were not told in advance, as the law requires. That was a mistake, as I think everyone agrees.”When you held office under President Reagan, the world witnessed a double standard. Reagan talked tough against terrorists while secretly negotiating with Iran and Hezbollah.“That was a mistake, as I think everyone agrees.”What, in your view, is the difference between Israel and the US on this issue? “One big difference is that we have 250,000 soldiers overseas in 150 countries and dozens of big foreign bases. The servicemen and women are made more vulnerable by this trade because they are now useful to potential captors as trade bait. Israel has almost no soldiers abroad and no bases so you are vulnerable only when someone crosses the border into Israel,” concludes Abrams.Still one can find a common trait. The Israeli and American governments talk with inflammatory rhetoric, “We shall never surrender to terrorists” – yet they do time and again. Israel does this more often with a greater readiness to pay a higher price.
Related TagsGilad Schalit
if(catID != 151){
var cont = `Take Israel home with the new Jerusalem Post Store
