While a shaky Middle East cease-fire continues to survive despite occasional breaches by the Israeli defense forces, recent media reports suggest that a deal between Israel and Hezbollah, involving a prisoner swap, is under way. An Egyptian daily even went as far as to say that the exchange could take place within two to three weeks.
In 2004, a deal brokered by Germany:
"saw the return of the bodies of three IDF soldiers who were kidnapped in October 2000 and of Israeli businessman Elhanan Tennenbaum. In return, Israel released some 430 Arab prisoners, most of them Palestinians, as well as the bodies of 60 Lebanese soldiers. The deal also includes the release of German prisoner Stephan Smyrek, accused of planning attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Bonn."
In 1996, Israel freed 45 Shiite Muslims and returned more than 100 Hezbollah bodies in exchange for the remains of two Israeli soldiers.
Since 1948, Israel has negotiated dozens of similar deals with the Arab groups, and this time will be no different from the previous ones--regardless of whether Israel and Lebanon have already reached an agreement or are still hammering out the exact details, a deal of some form that would enable the return of the captured Israeli soldiers in exchange for a number of Lebanese prisoners held in Israeli jails, looks inevitable.
Ironically, Israel is now holding talks for a prisoner swap after presiding over 34 days of carnage and cluster bombs--a proposal it flatly rejected when Hezbollah released a statement making clear its intention for a prisoner exchange shortly after the kidnapping of two soldiers on the fateful morning of July 12.
The obvious question is, why did Israel refuse to negotiate before, and instead launched a ferocious retaliatory attack effectively turning back the clock of Lebanon 20 years?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the ruins of Lebanon--the bloody message of hegemony: you live with Hezbollah, we leave you in your graves; you bite a finger, we will chop your limbs off. Period.
From Israel's point of view, the option of negotiation was always there, it's never off the table. However, in Hezbollah's act they saw an excellent opportunity to execute what they had in mind for quite some time. All they needed, was an excuse, no matter how feeble.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
I found the catalog of past prisoner exchanges enlightening in a way which you seem to have missed. In each of the past exchanges you list Israel gave up ridiculously more than they received back from their enemies. 45 living terrorists for 2 corpses? That's not a good deal. If that's the standard, I can see why they were looking for some other solution, even if it meant killing a disproportionately large number of the enemy to make a point.
Dave
2 - Q Bit
Dave:
Not just the two I mentioned--if you look at all the deals that have taken place, they were largely skewed. It might appear that the deals actually favor the Arabs, but I suppose you know there are 10,000 Arabs held in Israeli jails and not all of them are terrorists.
But Israel has always been clever when they release the prisoners. In most cases they release those who would have been released within weeks anyway and they usually don't release the hard cores.
Infact in 2004, Sharon held back three of the prominent Hezbollah prisoners in the last moment and since then Hezbollah has aired its views to secure the release of those three.
We should try to understand why Hezbollah carried out their "provocative" act in this perspective.
My point was people who are quick to brand the act of Hezbollah as provocative and justify Israel's massive disproportionate response are deliberately ignoring the history and the convoluted politics of the Middle East.
3 - Dave Nalle
But Israel has always been clever when they release the prisoners. In most cases they release those who would have been released within weeks anyway and they usually don't release the hard cores.
'clever'? I'd call that minimally sensible self-preservation.
My point was people who are quick to brand the act of Hezbollah as provocative and justify Israel's massive disproportionate response are deliberately ignoring the history and the convoluted politics of the Middle East.
The history of prior conflicts doesn't change the fact that it was a deliberate and unnecessary provocation.
Dave
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
There is another solution to emptying out Israel's jails (they do need to be emptied out so that place can be found for messianic extremists like me when the government starts to try to bulldoze our homes out of existence, you know).
They can be executed. That is what should have been done years ago. Shit, if you can arrest the bastard, why feed him? Kill him and remove the contamination from the earth. That is a lot smarter and cheaper than feeding the bastards where all they do is fester like boils, making us look like "fascists".
Since our enemies are calling us Nazis anyway and shitting all over us in the mainstream media, what's a few more tons of media diarrhea?
Why should we give a damn about people who want to and try to kill us? Once the scum are dead, then we can negotiate for the release of their bodies...
If there is a good 70% chance of execution for an Arab terrorist who is arrested, the yopung bastards who think it is an honor to go to Israeli jails will think twice. Dying at the end of a rope does not kill other Jews...
5 - Sanjay
[Edited]Q-bit wrote: "Because the tactic of taking hostages to be used later as bargaining chips to secure the release of prisoners is hardly copy-righted by Hezbollah or Hamas. Israel is, and has always been a part of the tradition."
Translation: what's the harm if we do a little kidnapping?
Answer: Because you signed a peace treaty, [Edited]. If you want peace, then be peaceful. If you want to kidnap, recognize that you're violating the peace treaty, and will no longer be protected by it.
I'd love to see Q-bit taking the Kobiyashi Maru test in Starfleet Academy.
"Go ahead and enter the Neutral Zone, because they won't fire on us if we violate the treaty. Uh oh! They're firing on us! Abandon ship!"
Q-bit doesn't have the mental capacity to understand that kidnapping is a violation of the peace treaty. There has been no Israeli kidnapping of Hezbollah since the peace treaty was signed. Respect the treaty or it won't respect you.
Taqqiya again and again. They never learn.
6 - Q Bit
@Dave
The history of prior conflicts doesn't change the fact that it was a deliberate and unnecessary provocation.
What about deliberate and unnecessary provocations by Israel? Why can't you admit that both sides are guilty to such acts. Israel, perhaps more simply because their raids outnumber Hezbollah and Hamas by a factor of ten.
@Ruvy: Ever tried looking at the mirror?
7 - Clavos
There's something weird about applying "lessons" taken from a fantasy movie to a life-or-death situation in a real war.
About as weird as letting astrology dictate your battle plan.
Though the point about what to expect when you violate a treaty is well taken.
8 - Q Bit
Sanjay:
I can give you lots of instances of Israeli violation of peace treaties, but one will suffice for now. Please check the very first link of my post.
9 - MCH
"About as weird as letting astrology dictate your battle plan."
And almost as weird as taking military advice from Dave Nalle or RJ Elliott.
10 - Clavos
or to listen to a REMF talk about military service.
11 - Dave Nalle
The next time I give tactical advice here will be the first time. Strategy transcends the military and goes into the political and foreign policy arenas where I'm at least somewhat qualified.
Maybe we should disqualify MCH from talking about politics because he's never held office or even worked on a political campaign or on the staff of an elected official.
Dave
12 - MCH
"or to listen to a REMF talk about military service."
or to believe a DESERTER, ie, "The reason I wasn't flying at Dannelly was because they didn't have the same kind of planes."
13 - Clavos
Non sequitur, MCH.
14 - Dave Nalle
Isn't it always a non sequiter when he shows up?
I do like the idea that not remembering something correctly that happened 30 years ago is equivalent to desertion.
Deserters get court martialed. Bush wasn't. Therefore he wasn't a deserter. End of story.
Dave
15 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Sanjay, three days ago you wrote,
"Answer: Because you signed a peace treaty, ... If you want peace, then be peaceful. If you want to kidnap, recognize that you're violating the peace treaty, and will no longer be protected by it."
Officially, Israel and Lebanon are at war. This fact has been so since 15 May, 1948. There is NO peace treaty between Israel and Lebanon. Period. There IS a peace treaty between Jordan and Israel and between Egypt and Israel.
So, let's all try to remember basic facts before wandering off into the Delta Quadrant with bullshit ideas, eh?
16 - MCH
Re 13 and 14....
Here's an opposing point-of-view, from a Korean War combat vet:
"...I want them to investigate the commander in chief, George W. "Jet Jockey" Bush. We know the speaker of the Texas House of Representatives called the head of the Air National Guard in 1968 and got the "cocky punk" into the Guard and moved to the head of the line for pilot training. We also know he was transferred to the Alabama Guard in 1972.
His orders, dated Sept. 15, 1972, said Lt. Bush should report to Lt. Col. William Turnipseed, to perform equivalent training. "To my knowledge he never showed up," Mr. Turnipseed said last month. "It's my understanding he did some politicking in Alabama and doesn't quite know what he did in the Alabama Guard and described it as "paper shuffling."
- By Richard D. Renew, Martinez, Ga., May 27, 2001
1950 Purple Heart recipient, Korean War combat veteran
augusta.com
awolbush.com
17 - Dave Nalle
You might want to reread #14 several times. And then go write something on-topic.
Dave
18 - Sanjay
Ruvy, the fact is that there was a land-for-peace deal arranged between Israel and Lebanon, which is why Israel withdrew from the buffer zone and sold SLA up the river. It was a stupid idea, of course, as shown by Hezbollah's continued violence.
Now we have more bombing of Lebanon -- this time by Hezbollah. news.bbc.co.uk
So why is it okay when Hezbollah and Syria bomb the Lebanese? How come there are no international protests on that?
19 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Sanjay, the withdrawal from Lebanon was fuelled by internal 'dissent' led by the Women in Black and others who protested the price of relative quiet in the northern border (about 15 to 20 dead soldiers annually).
Actually, it was spearheaded by Ehud Barak, a man with spectacularly bad judgment as a military leader and as a prime minister. The 'dissent' was played up by the press and used as an excuse for the evacuation of Lebanon.
There was never a peace treaty, and the stance of the Lebanese government, as far back as 1949, was always that it would make peace after ALL the other Arab states had.
20 - MCH
"Non sequitur, MCH."
- Clavos
"I do like the idea that not remembering something correctly that happened 30 years ago is equivalent to desertion. Deserters get court martialed. Bush wasn't. Therefore he wasn't a deserter. End of story."
- Dave Nalle
Here are two high-ranking miltary personnel who disagree.
"Tony McPeak, a retired four star general who headed the U.S. Air Force during Desert Storm, said, "Until we know the truth about president Bush's military service - how he got into the Guard, how and why he neglected his duty, how and why he was not disciplined - this issue will hang around and smell up the place."**
"The president dishonored the Guards decades ago, and he dishonors them today, by the way he misuses and mistreats them," said Admiral Stansfield Turner, U.S. Navy (retired) and former C.I.A. director. "George Bush owes them the truth about his own service and needs to answer questions about his commitment to our armed forces."***
**During the Vietnam War, Tony McPeak was assigned as an F-100 pilot with the 37th Tactical Fighter Wing at Phu Cat Air Base in the Republic of Vietnam. In the early months of 1969, he was reassigned to the "Misty" squadron, a special group of high speed forward air controllers trying to stop traffic down the Ho Chi Minh Trail. He ended up commanding this unit and moved with it when it was transferred to the 31st Tactical Fighter Wing at Tuy Hoa Air Base. Rotating out of his command, he served as chief of standardization and evaluation for 31st Wing. McPeak completed a total of 269 combat missions while in Vietnam, remaining in-country until 1970, after which he attended the Armed Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Virginia.
(wikipedia.org)
***Stansfield Turner attended Amherst College, and graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy with the Class of 1947 and attained a commission in the United States Navy in June, 1946 (during WWII classes were graduated in three years). He was a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford while serving in the navy. During his naval career he served as commander of U.S forces of Japan and Korea, as well as Southern Command of NATO. Turner served as president of Naval War College from 1972 to 1974 and was subsequently Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) from 1977 to 1981 (Jimmy Carter's administration). He was a member of the Monsanto board of directors. Turner is now a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland, College Park's School of Public Policy.
(wikipedia.org)
21 - Dave Nalle
What position did those guys hold on the court martial panel, MCH?
Dave
22 - Sanjay
Ruvy, Barak and Peres are patriots, but I agree that they were spectacularly naive. I would even go so far as to say that Barak was hand-picked much in advance by Atlanticist policymakers in the US and EU, because as an ex-commando he would have the credentials to shove even the most outlandish peace scheme down the throats of the Israeli public. As we can see, those types of naive fantasies will always die a harsh death in the Middle East. The Atlanticists like Madeleine Albright, in my opinion, were much more focused on treating Moscow and its residual allies as the primary enemy. In that respect, the Atlanticists are "the new Zionists" in the sense that they too were driven by a feeling of "never again" -- which in this case referred to the occupation of Eastern Europe. Given that this was their main preoccupation, then conflicts in the Middle East and Northern Ireland were considered mere "loose ends to be tied down" in the service of the "greater cause" (ie. independence and safety of Eastern/Central Europe)
23 - Clavos
Hoist by your own petard, MCH.
Neither one of these gentleman you cite state, or even imply, that Bush's "record" is grounds to charge him as a deserter.
And, as a reply to my comment about REMF, your comment about Bush WAS a non sequitur, since it had nothing whatever to do with mine. That, by definition, is a non sequitur.
24 - MCH
Well, somebody's lying, Clavvy.
Gen. William Turnispeed, CO of Dannelly AFB to whom GW was ordered to report in 1972, said, "Had he (GW Bush) reported in, I would have some recall, and I do not. If we had a first lieutenant from Texas, I would remember."
And when the group Texans For Truth offered a $50,000 reward for anyone who witnessed GW serving at Dannelly in '72...NO ONE COLLECTED.
So either Gen. Turnispeed and the 700 others who served at Dannelly at the time are lying...or Bush is lying. And since he also lied about being grounded for missing a physical exam, WMDs, etc, I think it's GW.