Last week, Israel gave up 1,027 tried and convicted prisoners to Hamas in exchange for imprisoned Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, whom the terrorist group had held captive for five years. The weight of the pretty penny Israel paid Hamas for Shalit’s return was too high a price for the return of a single soldier.
Shalit’s capture in the Gaza Strip in June 2006 was an unprovoked attack by Hamas, who took him hostage and killed two other soldiers in a cross-border raid. Since then, Shalit’s family and countless other Israelis lobbied for Shalit’s return. Many petitioned the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, to make bringing Shalit home a national priority.
When Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu finally decided to make the swap for Shalit, an overwhelming majority of Israelis — and Jews across the world — celebrated his return. Shalit had become a national symbol during his five years in captivity.
But in handing over more than 1,000 prisoners to a terrorist organization — prisoners responsible for the deaths of more than 500 Israeli civilians — in exchange for one man, Israel is neglecting bigger-picture national security concerns.
We understand that Israel is a nation bound together by shared national pride and without this glue, it could easily be overrun. It lies in a hotbed, surrounded by nations who perpetually wish for its demise. But nationalism isn’t tangible. The release of 1,027 prisoners is, however, and the swap could pose a real threat to Israeli citizens and the nation’s security.
The move is not unprecedented. In its history, Israel has given up more than 13,000 prisoners in exchange for just 16 of its soldiers. Obviously, warranted emotion plays a part in Israel’s foreign policy and drives it to make unbalanced swaps for captured soldiers. And in this instance especially, Netanyahu was under immense political pressure to make a decision that set tactics aside in the name of national sympathy. The move was, in many ways, inevitable.
But Israeli sentiment drove Netanyahu to sacrifice national security and set the precedent that going to the negotiating table with terrorists is acceptable. Israel has given Hamas greater leverage and regional legitimacy.
The Middle East is in the midst of a tumultuous period, and between the Arab Spring and Fatah’s bid for a Palestinian seat in the United Nations, the terrorist group Hamas — especially with moves like this — has the ability to gain power when Israel is especially vulnerable.
Israeli leadership made this decision with greater consideration for the nation’s pathos than for its security. The strength of its borders is weakening, and giving up 1,027 prisoners for the return of a single soldier endangers millions more Israeli citizens.