Israel Matzav

The march for Gilad Shalit

Benjamin Kerstein weighs in on the march for Gilad Shalit.

The arguments against the kind of deal Hamas is demanding are formidable, but it is frankly impossible not to sympathize with Noam Shalit’s stark description of the dillemma. “The question is not whether to release [Hamas] prisoners,” Haaretz quotes him as saying, “the question is whether Gilad should be killed.” Noam Shalit is, of course, correct; just as Netanyahu is equally correct in his misgivings. In the end, however, barring unforeseen tragedy, it seems likely that Noam Shalit will win the argument.

The reason for this has little to do with strategic calculation or political expediency. It has everything to do with the unique place the army occupies in Israeli society and the extraordinarily paternal attitude Israelis take toward their soldiers. Israel is one of the few remaining nations on earth that practices universal conscription while simultaneously being engaged in ongoing hostilities with many of its neighbors. Put simply, the IDF is a “people’s army” in the most literal sense. The army more or less is the people. Almost everybody serves and, as a result, everyone, at one point or another, also has a parent, friend, or child in the army – and thus in harm’s way – at any given time. When Israelis look at Gilad Shalit, they don’t only see themselves, they see everybody, from their closest loved ones to the strangers they pass in the street. And the thought of leaving any of them in perpetual captivity, especially in the hands of an enemy that essentially views Israelis (and Jews in general) as more or less subhuman, is simply impossible to contemplate.

This may not make for good policy in a pragmatic sense, but the practical implications of ignoring it are probably beyond Netanyahu’s capacity to obfuscate. Put simply, it is absolutely necessary for both army and civilian morale that Israelis believe that they will never be left behind. During the War of Independence in 1948, soldiers wounded too badly to be carried to safety would be given a grenade with which to commit suicide rather than fall into enemy hands. The fear that led to this custom has not gone away, nor, considering such incidents as the Ramallah lynching, in which two captured Israeli soldiers were literally torn to pieces by a Palestinian mob, is it entirely unjustified.

It is very possible that Netanyahu does not want to pay Hamas’s price for Gilad Shalit’s freedom. It is equally possible that, intellectually speaking, he is right. But he is up against the entirety of Israeli culture as well as the pragmatic necessity of maintaining Israel’s sense that, while the world may hate us, we are there for each other. The facts appear to suggest that culture and necessity are winning. Noam Shalit’s protest march is now 5,000 strong and apparently growing. “People have said this wave of protest is a sign of weakness,” IDC president Uriel Reichman told Haaretz, “The opposite is true. What is happening here is an expression of Israeli strength and of the principle that all Israelis are responsible for one another.” For better or worse, he’s right.

I'm not convinced Kerstein is right.

As impressive as the Shalit family march has been, the largest number of people they have had is 15,000, which is happening for the second time as these words are being written. That's not a hugely impressive number even for Israel. Rallies of 100,000 are common here, and there have been much larger rallies. The Haredi rally over the school system in Emanuel a few weeks ago was many times larger than 15,000. Contrary to Kerstein's assertion, I would argue that the public is largely indifferent because it doesn't believe a deal is going to happen anyway, because it is not ready for a deal 'at any price,' and because the 'popular support' behind the Shalit family is a creation of Israel's media elites, which want the deal done for their own reasons.

After Thursday night's rally, the Shalit family will go to a protest tent outside Prime Minister Netanyahu's official residence (where he does not live), which has existed since the Shalit family spent several weeks there a couple of summers ago. Once the Shalits are there, it will be very difficult to stay in the headlines. It is far more likely that their presence will be overtaken by events, unless there is a real chance Shalit may be released, or until the next anniversary of his capture. They will fade from the headlines. It is more likely that they will become like the Women in Black - a group of Leftists and anarchists that holds a weekly Friday protest across the street from the Shalits' protest tent. Everyone knows the women are there, but no one pays them much attention most of the time.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's behavior reflects this reality. While he spoke to the nation last Thursday night - probably out of fear that things would otherwise get out of hand - he has not said anything about Shalit since. He flew to Washington on Monday night, and there was no indication that Shalit's fate was a major matter of discussion while Netanyahu was in Washington (what went on between Netanyahu and Jewish communal leaders in New York matters less for these purposes). It almost seems like it's not a priority.

I believe that Gilad Shalit's release is a priority, but that Netanyahu believes (perhaps correctly) that the only way to lower the price to something almost palatable is to get it out of the headlines. While the Shalit family - skewered by the experience of Ron Arad (who was shot down in 1986 over Lebanon, was known to be alive for the first few years, and then disappeared) - may believe otherwise, I would not discount Netanyahu's views of the matter. It's much more difficult to make someone disappear from Gaza in the 21st century than it was in Lebanon in the late 1980's.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:59 PM