A Lopsided Deal For Peace?

“I hope this deal will promote peace between Israel and the Palestinians,” said Gilad Shalit, the man of the day today. After being held five years in Palestinian custody, the Israeli soldier was returned to Israel in an exchange for over 1000 Palestinian soldiers in Israeli custody. Referred to as the “most lopsided prisoner swap in Israeli history”, 497 Palestinian prisoners were released today, and another 550 are expected to be released in two months. Shalit was captured in a June 2006 raid where Palestinian soldiers tunneled beneath the Israeli border.

Wild celebrations met the Palestinian homecoming soldiers, many of whom had been sentenced to death. The feeling of the day is one of jubilant nationalism and relief, as well as a continued encouragement to resist occupation. Controversy abounded when the deal was in preliminary talks, and families of Palestinian terrorist victims rallied outside the Israeli High Court in an attempt to block the deal on Monday. Israelis overwhelmingly supported the 1,000-1 swap for Shalit, though, with an estimated support of 4 out of 5 Israelis.

The prisoner deal was conducted through Egyptian negotiators due to a refusal of direct communication by both Hamas and the Israeli government; the swap itself and the various steps composing it was aided by Egyptian officials and the Red Cross. Although talks have been conducted between the two governments through both Egyptian and German negotiators, it is the effort and desire of both sides to create friendly ties with the new Egyptian government that helped solidify the deal.

While it is understandable that there is significant coverage of Shalit, considering his prominent position in the deal and his hero-figure status in Israel, it is surprising that the release of one particular man is so widely covered by the media as opposed to the after-thought of the release of over four hundred Palestinians on Israeli death row, and the promise for the eventual release of twice that.

- Liana

Gilad Shalit Freed! (Is it now all good in the hood?)

Yesterday, Gilad Shalit, an Israeli solider who has been held hostage in the Gaza strip for five years was finally released and reunited with his family. Shalit, a 19 year old tank crewman, was kidnapped during a Hamas border raid in 2006. This is a huge moral victory for all Israelis young and old, because every family has been affected by this saga. Israel has a policy of conscription and every man and woman are expected to serve in the army and every mother and farther must send their children to serve in the army. The Israeli government promises to protect all its soldiers fighting for their country and if actions speak loader than words, freeing Shalit surely proves the governments commitment to this pledge right? Yes and No.

Yes:
-Israel has been given a very hard bargain. The government has agreed to free Shalit in exchange for freeing over 1000 convicted Palestinian terrorists. This agreement alone demonstrates Israels commitment to protecting those serving in their armed forces. The terrorists Israel is releasing all have Israeli blood on their hands and although, Shalit's family are over joyed to have Gilad back in the their life's, there are many families today in Israel grieving over this swap. The murderers being released are not paying the full price for killing peoples sons, daughters, mothers, fathers etc. Many of these terrorists targeted and killed Israeli civilians, some being children. This is such a controversial move by the Israeli government that the swap prompted the Prime Minister to send a letter to each a the suffering families. The letter assured that family that it was a hard bargain to make, that he understands their sacrifice and ends the letters saying that 'Israel will continue to fight terrorism". This kind of swap is nothing new in Israeli politics, but this time there is so much more to it.

NO:
- Gilad Shalit has been in captivity for FIVE YEARS. Two different governments have tired to secure his release and have failed until now. In fairness, all involved have worked tirelessly to secure a deal on Shalit's release, Prime Minister Olmert was very close before he resigned. However, this weeks "swap" is all political. Prime Minister Netanyahu is more unpopular than ever in Israel and Hamas have been suffering since Abbas ignored their objections and went to the UN. This Netanyahu- Hamas switch is as much a moral victory for both groups and it is a PR victory.
Netanyahu will be remembered as a hero who went against impossible odds to protect one of the most famous Israelis. Hamas have proven to be the most effective collation partners as its seem that Abbas's push to become a state at the UN appears to have backfired with the current resolution making them only an observers state. This swap could have happened anytime in the last five years and similar proposals have been on the table many times before. It is important to ask Mr Netanyahu why he decided to ratify the agreement last week.

The release of Gilad Shalit is a good thing, Israel soldiers should know the lengths their government will go to protect them and bring them home. The Israeli government has proved this commitment over and over again in the past. The risk is whether this exchange means that Hams will seek a new policy of actively kidnapping Israelis to conduct similar swaps and whether or not the over 1000 released terrorists will resort to return to the type of terrorism and even murder they were arrested for. I think not, or not so quickly. The negotiations were brokered by Egypt. Egypt has new leverage over Hamas, Hamas is moving its headquarters for Damascus to Ciro due to dissatisfaction with the way Assad (their former Allie) has dealt with the uprising. For the time being, Egypt will seek to keep Hamas at bay, while Hamas themselves try to gain political momentum from this swap both domestically and internationally. The terrorists may attempt of return to their previous occupations, but have no doubt that every man and woman released is going to be watched like a hawk by the Israeli security forces.

- Roy

Pending (Forever?): What Happens Now

Saya Iwasaki

Tunisia and Egypt successfully overthrew their long-standing autocratic government. While congratulations seem appropriate, “what next?” is an important question to ask; especially with the sudden influx of about 3000 Tunisian immigrants into Sicily. The Revolutions are far from over and until both countries can regain stability, I don't think I can say that they were 100% successful.

Many Tunisians are migrating to Europe in hopes of making the big money, especially since the economy of Tunisia is in a fragile state and not strong enough to support a certain population. The unemployed have gained nothing from the revolution since they continue to remain in the same state. While Italian officials can talk about reducing the number of immigrants, the numbers will not lessen until Tunisia is stable again and able to increase the standard of living for their citizens.

The biggest concern is the post-Revolution state of the nation. The Constitution in Tunisia is being written out right now, but the lack of government leaves an empty position of authority that could be filled by A. a proper government, B. another autocrat or military official or C. by the Islamists returning from exile. In Egypt, people are celebrating and the power was handed over to the military, but will the people’s wish for a democracy be answered?

The problem with revolutions is always after, never during. Once the former power has been removed, the new power is in charge of running the nation. In Myanmar, one of the underlying intentions of the coup d’etat of 1962 was to remove democracy and centralize power in order to promote economic and social movements. Well, that clearly worked brilliantly. With the faltering economy of Tunisia, will a new centralized government emerge to temporarily lessen the impact of the revolution (and end up staying for another 20 years)? Positively speaking though, Egypt will have the support of the U.S. so I predict that their revolution will be more successful than Tunisia.

The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt (at this stage) remind me of Bakunin's writing on revolutions, especially since the people fought to overthrow the government but not to transfer power. Bakunin was a revolutionary that emphasized anarchy and power to the people. He didn't care to plan out the post-Revolutionary state, which was heavily by Marx. Let's hope that the hubbub will begin to settle down and both nations can chisel a clear path to a strong democracy.