The Exorbitant Price of Terrorist Releases

by Meir Indor, Chairman of the Almagor Association of Terrorist Victims, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Freeing terrorists in exchange for Israeli hostages, which Israel has done repeatedly over the years, encourages further kidnappings, weakens our deterrence, and leaves the families of terrorist victims out of the picture. The time has come to change direction and set clear red lines. 

The State of Israel has found itself, in recent decades and years, on a very worrisome track of normalizing the release of hundreds of terrorists, if not more, in the framework of a "deal" for hostages. 

Something that in the past was very infrequent and exceptional has become almost routine. This trend, supported at times by elements in the political, judicial, and media establishments, causes tremendous harm to Israel's deterrence, erodes the public trust, and encourages increased terrorism. 

INVITING KIDNAPPINGS

When the release of terrorists becomes known as an accepted means by which to deal with the problem of Israelis in captivity, the result is a direct incentivization for the terrorist organizations to step up their murderous activity. When Hamas and its ilk succeed in obtaining mass releases of terrorists from Israeli prisons, this proves to them how effective is their usage of kidnappings as a strategic tool. This model, which reached its climax in the Shalit deal of 2011 (1,027 Palestinian terrorists in exchange for soldier Gilad Shalit) – anchors in a dangerous construct: One Israeli hostage = hundreds of terrorists freed from prison.

Added to this problematic situation is the fact that various countries around the world support terrorism via funding, arms, or diplomatic backing. Not only that, but the imprisoned terrorists are treated to very favorable conditions, and even judicial support. All of these contribute to form an atmosphere that encourages more kidnappings, and further distances Israel from its goal of achieving stable deterrence. 

THE VICTIMS' FAMILIES ARE LEFT ON THE SIDELINES

This approach is very painful, in particular to the families of past terrorist victims. Not only did they lose their loved ones, but they also feel that they have been shunted away from the judicial and diplomatic channels. In the past, the families were able to file court appeals against the releases, but now this option has all been eliminated, in that the courts always reject it with the claim that these deals are "diplomatic" decisions. 

The fact that the Supreme Court makes its decisions about these types of deal at night, and sometimes even without inviting representatives of the families of victims, gives over a very grave message: "The memory of the victims, and the right of their families to present their position, are irrelevant."

For the terrorist organizations, this is another proof that Israel has accepted – even if not willingly – the system of kidnappings as a reality it must live with.

THE MEDIA'S CROOKED NARRATIVE

The way the media covers the issue also has a significant impact. In many cases, the families of the hostages receive extensive exposure, while other voices – such as "Tikvah (Hope) Forum," which opposes prisoner release deals – are almost completely silenced. The distorted narrative that is widely presented now, which suggests that every hostage, dead or alive, must be rescued "at any cost," is liable to disrupt the ethical and security balance of the State of Israel. 

There are even army officers who admit that the IDF is limited in how it conducts its battles in Gaza – and that these limitations stem from the presence of the hostages in (or under, to be more precise) the area of the warfare. Thus, soldiers are liable to be endangered, and their units do not have the necessary freedom of mobility to maneuver as they need.

WRONG MESSAGE TO THE ENEMY

An abrupt and massive release of terrorists sends a clear and sharp message to the enemy: Terrorism pays off. The murderers of our parents, siblings, and children become heroes in their society, and our army's deterrence capabilities are significantly compromised. There is a genuine fear that each deal comes with much worse terms than the one before it, and the vicious cycle will upend our essential national security. 

CHANGING THE PARADIGM

Israel need not give in to this phenomenon. A strong stand against terrorism is a success in and of itself. It buttresses our deterrence, our national confidence in the army and government, and our national image in the international arena. We must put a halt to these terrorist releases, and strive instead for clear victory that will prevent not the next exchange deal, but the next kidnapping. 

Only a clear and uncompromising policy that emphasizes that terrorism will not pay off will restore Israel's deterrence force and provide security for its citizens.

Syria's New President: A Real Change – or a Clever Trick Being Played on the West?

by former Ambassador Yoram Ettinger - researcher, diplomat, writer, lecturer and consultant to Israeli and US legislators, translated by Hillel Fendel.

Is the new president of Syria - Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, better known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Julani – still a bona-fide murderous terrorist now dressed in a suit, or has he truly left his past and now seeks to pragmatically rebuild Syria which has been torn apart tribally, ethnically, religiously, and ideologically? 

Just to be clear, the first option in more detail is that he is suspected to be tricking Western policy makers, who are frustrated with nearly 14 centuries of internecine Muslim wars in the bleeding Middle East, into believing that he actually wants and will bring peaceful co-existence guided by practical finances and diplomacy. 

Just as with other Middle East leaders, such as Mahmoud Abbas, long-time chairman of the Palestinian Authority, and Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, the answer to the enigma of their beliefs and intentions can be found most authentically in their educational systems, Friday sermons in mosques, official media, and ties with terrorist organizations. 

 Given al-Julani's ISIS and Al-Qaeda jihadist background, any Western gesture towards him - such as suspending economic sanctions or renewing diplomatic relations - must be conditioned on the eradication of hate education, the anti-West bent of sermons and the media, and the severing of all ties with terrorist organizations. He must also explicitly and officially renounce the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood and of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which calls for the overthrow of nationalist Muslim regimes, the subjugation of "infidels," and the installation of Islam as the world’s only legitimate religion.

If we want to be reality-based when dealing with al-Julani, we must learn from the precedents of other Middle East leaders who totally misled Western policy makers. For example, former Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, when he first took power, spoke with moderation and placed emphasis on his past as an ophthalmologist in Great Britain. The West was likely also fooled by his having married a British citizen of Syrian origin, his position as president of the Syrian Internet Union, and his ability to speak several languages. The apparently moderate Assad was hosted by the President of France during the Bastille Day Parade, and became a friend of senior U.S. Senator John Kerry and other American lawmakers. 

Not long after taking office, however, Assad was revealed to be even more evil than his father. He slaughtered his own citizens and led a civil war that killed more than a half-million people, led to seven million refugees outside Syria, and another similar number displaced within the country. 

Let us consider Iran. In 1978, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini surrounded himself with a bunch of young, brilliant, and articulate advisors, graduates of Western universities who spoke multiple foreign languages. He instructed them to brief American diplomats and journalists with (dis)information portraying an anti-Soviet, pro-American worldview, a focus on human rights for the Iranian people, the lack of desire and intent to export the Islamic revolution beyond Iran’s borders, and a commitment to peaceful coexistence with Sunni neighbors.

Then-U.S. President Jimmy Carter loved hearing these things, and his Administration was of the opinion that all was well: "Khomeini will deal with tractors, not tanks," and "he will be the same as Indira Gandhi." Carter exerted heavy pressure on the Iranian army, which objected to Khomeini's return from exile in France, thus helping facilitate the toppling of the Shah's pro-American regime. 

Again, this approach soon proved to be the opposite of the truth. Guided by a fanatical vision, Khomeini executed a large number of top army figures, took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days (until the day of Ronald Reagan's inauguration). In the process, he transformed Iran from being “America’s policeman in the Gulf” into the world’s leading anti-American hub of terrorism, drug trafficking, money laundering, and weapons systems proliferation. This was quite a large-scale American misjudgment.

In 1993, Yasser Arafat similarly fooled the West. He made declarations of peace – whenever he spoke to Western and Israeli audiences, that is, but certainly not in Arab forums – that were precisely adapted to the addiction of Israeli and Western leaders to the alternate reality of "peace now" and a "new Middle East." While these leaders were focused on "progress" and "coexistence," and while Arafat was being laundered into a peace activist who was actually awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, his Palestinian populace was breaking out an unprecedented wave of murderous terrorism, known as the Intifada.

Back to al-Julani. The Muslim Brotherhood, the world's largest Sunni terrorist organization, sees his power grab in Syria as a tremendous inspiration for similar developments throughout the Arab world. Ever since the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928, it has shown expertise in misleading the West, via a combination of religious, educational, social, charitable, and political activity, together with terrorism and subversion. Driven by a vision of the establishment of a universal society based on Islam as the sole legitimate religion, the Brotherhood mandates the overthrow of all nationalist Muslim regimes, as well as the subjugation of the "infidel" West. 

In contrast to the Western foreign policy establishment, which does not view the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, all moderate Arab regimes feel the blade of the Brotherhood at their throats.

Bottom line: While al-Julani could end up being a terrorist-turned-pragmatist, the West must learn from its past mistakes. In the words of John Jenkins, a leading British expert on the Muslim Brotherhood and the Middle East: "The West must overcome the temptation to interpret the Middle East using Western values and concepts…. The West is liable to be tempted to believe that the toppling of an evil Middle Eastern regime leads to the rise of a more positive regime. However, Middle East reality proves the opposite… Governmental violence does not get weaker, but rather returns…"

Good luck to us all!