Israel refuses to agree to open the Gaza border crossings without the return of Gilad Shalit. Hamas refuses to return Gilad Shalit until the crossings are open. The AP hasn’t mentioned this in the last few days, but I did find an interesting quote from Ehud Olmert in a four-day-old article that may well be the key to Hamas’ intransigence:
The prime minister spoke Sunday to U.S. Jewish leaders, saying, “Hamas must think twice if they think we will open borders before Gilad Schalit is returned home and healthy.”
If Shalit is dead, of course Hamas doesn’t want Israel to know it. His value as a trade item goes down if he’s a corpse. Of course, they may just refuse to hand over Shalit because they’re anti-Semitic terrorists who have no intention of returning the soldier they kidnapped, but hey, that’s just my opinion.
Hamas also thinks theyire holding all the cards. That’s because Israel has traded thousands of Palestinian prisoners for corpses before. Precedence is on their side. Which is why Khaled Mashaal feels fully confident in declaring that they won’t tie Shalit’s fate to the opening of Gaza.
His demand was swiftly rejected by Hamas’s exiled leader Khaled Mashaal, who again accused Israel of backtracking on the terms of a proposed long-term truce by linking the lifting of the blockade to the soldier’s release.
“Israel is responsible for blocking Egypt’s efforts to broker a truce by adding a new condition at the last minute,” Mashaal said after Damascus talks with Arab League chief Amr Mussa.
“A truce can come about only in exchange for a lifting of the blockade and the reopening of the crossing points. It is unacceptable to combine the truce issue with the question of Israeli prisoner Gilad Shalit,” Mashaal said.
And this is being backed up by Egypt, apparently.
“Egypt will not change its position on the truce – the matter of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit is a separate issue which can in no way be linked to the truce negotiations,” the state-owned Egyptian daily Al-Ahram quoted President Hosni Mubarak as saying.
It’s good to know that Egypt is working towards Israel’s best interests. Because if I didn’t know that, I’d think Egypt was working towards Hamas’ best interests in this case.
Speaking during a visit to the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Olmert said he was “not aware of any Egyptian criticism against us.”
That’s just perfect. If the article in Al-Ahram is true, and Olmert knows nothing about it, well, this circus they call a negotiation will go on until Shalit qualifies for retirement.
And of course, the world media will spin this as Israel’s intransigence. Because why should Israel demand the release of a soldier that was kidnapped by Hamas from Israel 968 days ago, on June 25, 2006. He’s spent his 20th, 21st, and 22nd birthday in captivity. Or he’s dead, since we have no real proof of life. There has not been a single visit by the Red Cross. No one outside of terrorists has seen Shalit since he was captured. But the world will blame Israel for not opening the crossings. Watch for it.
Israel should have waged war against Hamas until every single one was dead, with the clear understanding that the current engagement would stop if Shalit was returned unharmed. It’s difficult to believe that so much of the world thinks Hamas deserves credibility and support while holding a kidnapped hostage. The Middle East conflict should inform the world of their future status if Israel falls, but the world is too damn stupid to recognize it. Or too cowardly.
Stupid and cowardly, Maquis, stupid and cowardly.
I think Shalit has been dead a long time. But the Cast Lead operation was about much more than one captive. You are right, they should have pursued Hamas until every last one of the scum was dead or a prisoner, because only in that way could Israel be freed from the threat of attack from Gaza.
It is a mattter of strategy. Israel holds the Central Position between Syria, Gaza, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. That is only valuable if Israel strikes at the threats individually. If Israel waits until they all three attack together, there will be trouble. That’s what happened in 1973 with Egypt and Syria. Destroying Hamas would free up Zahal in an emergency to fight in the north alone, where Syria and Hezbollah can be handled as a single front. With Hamas still in Gaza Israel must look over its shoulder there in case of trouble in the north.
No doubt some would think such a scenario far fetched. Consider this. Simultaneous rocket attacks, by masive numbers of superior rockets furnished by Iran. At the same time Syria mobilizes, threatening war if Israel goes after Hezbollah or Hamas, with iran backing it up. That could get very ugly. And of course everybody would be blaming Israel for the crisis, regardless of the actual cause. That, “everybody”, I’m afraid, would include the Obama Administration.