Israel has agreed to swap 1000 prisoners with Hamas for the release of the IDF soldier captured in 2006. Paul Pillar applauds:
The deal is good news, of course, for the prisoners on both sides being released and for their families. For the rest of us, the good news is that despite the strong and unrelenting animosity in both directions between the two parties that struck the deal, a deal was nonetheless struck. And this was a complex agreement. It involves a phased release of the Palestinian prisoners and a possible side agreement between Israel and Egypt, which played a mediating role, entailing an Israeli apology for the recent killing of Egyptian security personnel following a cross-border Palestinian raid.
See what Netanyahu can do if he actually wants to? Daniel Levy is less sanguine, as are Jeffrey Goldberg and Alon Pinkas. I find it fascinating that Netanyahu can make astonishing concessions to Hamas that clearly weaken Israel's security, but not to the PA in a manner that would improve Israel's long-term security. The usual absolute prohibition against talking to terrorists is, it turns out, not-so-absolute. But the prohibition against stopping settlements in order to engage non-terrorists is unbreakable. It only makes sense if you realize that Netanyahu is a Greater Israel fanatic, not an anti-terror absolutist. Ilya Somin outright opposes the deal:
Among the Hamas prisoners released in the deal are dozens who have committed brutal acts of terrorism against civilians in the past. If even a few of them commit further terrorist atrocities in the future, the resulting death toll is likely to far outweigh the benefit of saving Shalit. Moreover, such a lopsided deal (trading hundreds of hardened terrorists for an ordinary soldier) incentivizes future hostage-taking. Hamas officials have already said that the deal encourages them to kidnap more Israelis. If one hostage is worth 1000 prisoners, what can they get for two or three or ten? As one Hamas leader puts it, “[s]omeone who agrees to release 1,000 prisoners will agree to release 8,000 in the future.” If even a right-wing Israeli government that has otherwise taken a hard line against Palestinian terrorism is willing to go for such a deal, what about other liberal democracies? The precedent set by the Israelis is likely to endanger other nations as well as themselves.
Walter Russell Mead tries to get into the Israeli leadership's head on the issue.
(Photo: Israelis celebrate outside the Prime Minister's residence on October 11, 2011 in Jerusalem, Israel. Israel and Hamas have reached a prisoner exchange deal that will secure the release of abducted Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been held by Hamas militants since 2006. By Lior Mizrahi/Getty Images.)
The Dish 