Israel Matzav

Renounce the deal

At our festive meal for Hoshana Rabba today, the kids started asking whether and why we really have to release another 550 terrorists in two months' time. After all, Gilad is home already, so why not ignore the rest of the deal? Mrs. Carl dismissed the question, saying that Israel always keeps its word, but I said that it's not so simple. This is from an editorial that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on January 21, 1981, the day after Ronald Reagan's inauguration and the day after the second worst President in American history had finally managed to negotiate the release of the last 52 hostages from the American embassy in Iran. They were held for 444 days - about a quarter of Gilad Shalit's toll.

'The agreement the United States made with Iran for return of the hostages has the same moral standing as an agreement made with a kidnapper, that is to say none at all. This is not said in criticism of the Carter administration, which made the deal to save the hostages’ lives. But now that the hostages are free, President Reagan should examine the agreement carefully and if its unfulfilled parts do not, on balance, benefit American interests, there should be no hesitation in renouncing it.’

Could the same not be said about Israel's agreement with Hamas?

The New York Sun raises the question and comments:

What we are counseling is that Israel has a free hand. A spokesman of Hamas, Fawzi Barhoum, is being quoted by the New York Times as warning Israel against “maneuvering or playing with any article of the agreement.” But that is not a sentiment for America to echo. It would be wrong to pressure Israel to stick by the deal. Or criticize it if it doesn’t. Particularly because it’s not yet entirely clear what all the elements of the agreement are.

There are reports — cited in Caroline Glick’s most recent column in the Jerusalem Post, for example — that Israel agreed “to give safe passage to Hamas’s leaders decamping to Egypt.” The theory seems to be that the Hamas terror chiefs are suddenly uncomfortable at Syria now that the regime in Damascus is in open war with the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalists there.

We’re not so concerned with any of the particulars. The point here is that if Israel were to renounce any further obligations, it would be — as the Wall Street Journal pointed out that President Reagan was — well within its rights. The kidnapping of Sergeant Shalit was an act of extortion. And an agreement extracted from someone with a gun to his head is not an agreement at all. Israel deserves support in whatever decision it makes in respect to the so-called agreement from here on out. It has the same free hand that America had 30 years ago.

Amen. I hope that Netanyahu's inner circle is taking a long hard look at this.

Labels: Hamas, Iranian hostage crisis, Jimmy Carter, New York Sun, Ronald Reagan, terrorists for Gilad trade, Wall Street Journal

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 2:56 PM