Israeli PM calls for meeting about possible release of Gilad Shalit

Israeli PM calls for meeting about possible release of Gilad Shalit – This Just In

By Shiplord Kirel: From behind wingnut lines

Breaking • October 2011 • Views: 1,200

news.blogs.cnn.com

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called a government meeting at 8 p.m. Tuesday to discuss the possible release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, an Israeli government official told CNN.

The official said Netanyahu would not have called such a meeting unless he thought that the proposals for Shalit’s release were serious.

This is a developing story and cnn.com will post more reporting shortly.

Recent Pages by Shiplord Kirel (Shiplord Kirel: From behind wingnut lines):
Banksters, Peasants, and Kim Jong Un's Grandpa: A Parable for Our Times. Charles Willoughby, Cooked Intel, and the Far Right. Putin's Real Long Game (January 2017) Blast From the Past: The North Texas Skeptic, May 1999 Republican Senator Claims 'The Left' Will Start a Civil War Unless Federal Highway System Abolished

Jump to bottom

21 comments

What, me worry? Tue, Oct 11, 2011 12:23:00pm

Jpost is reporting now that the deal is made. It's a prisoner swap, but not clear on which Palestinian prisoners they're swapping. Twitter rumors think Barghouti will be in the deal, but can't say yet.

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

PM: Schalit will be on his way home in the coming days
By HERB KEINON
10/11/2011 21:04

Ministers to discuss approval of mediated deal for release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Schalit from captivity in Gaza; A deal has reportedly been reached with Hamas.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu vowed on Tuesday to bring kidnapped soldier Gilad Schalit home within the coming days.

Speaking at a press conference following an urgent cabinet meeting over the prisoner-swap deal that free Schalit - which sources said was approved by Hamas - Netanyahu said he would stand true to his promise to bring Schalit home to his parents and grandparents.

Netanyahu said that he was presenting the final prisoner-swap deal to the Cabinet on Tuesday, following rigorous negotiations with the Palestinians.

"There was great tension between bringing Schalit home...and maintaining the security of Israeli citizens," Netanyahu said of the talks.

The prime minister convened a special cabinet meeting Tuesday evening to approve an Egyptian mediated deal for the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Schalit, government sources confirmed.

Netanyahu was quoted on TV news as saying "the window has been opened for an historic deal" to free Shalit, captured by Hamas militants tunneling under a border fence in June 2006.

In Gaza, a source involved in Egyptian-mediated talks between Israel and the Islamist group told Reuters agreement had been reached for a swap to take place possibly as soon as in the coming days.

Government sources said that in recent days there have been a number of high level meetings in the Prime Minister's Office dealing with Schalit. The Egyptian press has also reported in recent days visits by Israeli officials to Cairo.

Channel 2 said that Hamas's diplomatic bureau chief Haled Mashaal was expected to make comments on the issue on Hamas's TV station Tuesday evening, adding that both sides had shown flexibility as of late on a final deal.

The announcement came after last week, Palestinian and Egyptian sources denied an Al Hayat report which said that German mediator Gerhard Konrad was in Cairo for talks over a prisoner-swap deal.

Vicious Babushka Tue, Oct 11, 2011 12:52:17pm

Barghouti will be part of the deal.

It's official: 1 Jew = 1000 Palestinians.

_RememberTonyC Tue, Oct 11, 2011 1:17:01pm

I hope that once Schalit is safely in the hands of his countrymen, the IDF is ready to unleash holy hell on every hamas target in gaza that can be identified. You know that the "hamas holes" will hail this great "victory" over Israel. And it is up to Israel to show them in no uncertain terms that while they maye have 1000 criminals back on their soil, there is still a debt that needs to be settled ... on Israel's terms.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 11, 2011 1:20:44pm

re: #3 _RememberTonyC

Um, you're advocating that Israel immediately launch a large attack right after Shalit is returned? Or after the rest of the prisoners are released?

You don't think that would reflect badly on Israel? I'm all for Israel defending itself against rocket attacks, but a sudden bombardment right after concluding a peaceful (if skewed and despicable) deal wouldn't really show Israel in a good light.

_RememberTonyC Tue, Oct 11, 2011 1:27:23pm

re: #4 Obdicut

Um, you're advocating that Israel immediately launch a large attack right after Shalit is returned? Or after the rest of the prisoners are released?

You don't think that would reflect badly on Israel? I'm all for Israel defending itself against rocket attacks, but a sudden bombardment right after concluding a peaceful (if skewed and despicable) deal wouldn't really show Israel in a good light.

They can wait a short time, but they owe hamas an ass kicking for this. And believe it or not, they'll earn more respect from their enemies by opening a can of whoop ass than they will by worrying about their image. I am not suggesting indiscriminate bombing, I am suggesting identifying key hamas targets and doing what they need to do. As for their image around the world? I think they'll be hated in many circles regardless of their actions. "Jumping ugly" on hamas is doing the world a favor and many will privately cheer, even while they condemn Israel publicly.

Vicious Babushka Tue, Oct 11, 2011 1:33:32pm

Hamas has already said they will kidnap more soldiers. Not that they haven't been trying all along.

I hope Barghouti gets cancer. I hope he gets several kinds of cancer.

_RememberTonyC Tue, Oct 11, 2011 1:38:45pm

re: #6 Alouette

Hamas has already said they will kidnap more soldiers. Not that they haven't been trying all along.

I hope Barghouti gets cancer. I hope he gets several kinds of cancer.

they're terrorists .... that is what they do. Our own President treated osama and al awlaki like the terrorists they were. And Israel should do the same with hamas. To do otherwise is to invite more aggression. Netanyahu can learn something from Obama on this one.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 11, 2011 1:39:14pm

re: #5 _RememberTonyC

They can wait a short time, but they owe hamas an ass kicking for this. And believe it or not, they'll earn more respect from their enemies by opening a can of whoop ass than they will by worrying about their image.

I don't think that's true, since I don't think anything Israel could do would win 'respect' from Hamas, nor do I think trying to garner Hamas's respect is a good idea.

I am not suggesting indiscriminate bombing, I am suggesting identifying key hamas targets and doing what they need to do.

But why is this related to Shalit's release? Is it because if they still had him hostage they would have executed him? I don't get how the two are twinned in your mind.

As for their image around the world? I think they'll be hated in many circles regardless of their actions. "Jumping ugly" on hamas is doing the world a favor and many will privately cheer, even while they condemn Israel publicly.

Any time you have to try to convince yourself people secretly agree with you, you're in trouble.

_RememberTonyC Tue, Oct 11, 2011 1:52:15pm

re: #8 Obdicut

I don't think that's true, since I don't think anything Israel could do would win 'respect' from Hamas, nor do I think trying to garner Hamas's respect is a good idea.

But why is this related to Shalit's release? Is it because if they still had him hostage they would have executed him? I don't get how the two are twinned in your mind.

As for their image around the world? I think they'll be hated in many circles regardless of their actions. "Jumping ugly" on hamas is doing the world a favor and many will privately cheer, even while they condemn Israel publicly.

Any time you have to try to convince yourself people secretly agree with you, you're in trouble.

We disagree on many things and I suppose we see the world differently. hamas will never respect Israel, but once Schalit is no longer in their hands, Israel has an opportunity to pay them back by attacking terrorist targets, which in my mind is any hamas entity. Yes, Schalit was hamas' insurance policy against some types of military action by Israel. Everyone in Israel wanted him home safely. And if you don't see the connection between Schalit's status as a prisoner of hamas and israel's reticence about "jumping ugly" on hamas, I don't even know how to respond. History has shown time and again that when evil is confronted by strength, there are positive benefits. Did many around the world condemn Israel in 1981 for bombing saddam's nuclear reactor? Yes. And quite a few later admitted that in retrospect they were glad it happened. Would Japan have surrendered in WW2 if we didn't drop nuclear bombs on them? Well .... they didn't surrender after the first one, but they surrendered after the second. As long as Israel's very right to exist is not accepted by its "neighbors," they get to make their own rules in order to survive and keep terrorist entities at bay. And if taking revenge against hamas for Schalit's kidnapping helps in that cause, I am in favor.

Simply Sarah Tue, Oct 11, 2011 1:53:45pm

First off, let me make it clear that I don't expect Israel to do anything like what _RememberTonyC is suggesting, because I know the country is better than that. And I can tell you one reason why it would be a terrible idea: It would cost them people that want to support them. I apologize ahead of time if this comes out a bit overly angry or anti-Israel, but I find what seems to be being suggested to be rather horrific and counter-productive.

To put to plainly, were such a thing to happen, it would become very hard for me to support Israel in this if, after a peaceful transfer of prisoners, they quickly launched a massive attack unprovoked by any further action. I'm not saying I'd turn to supporting Hamas, since clearly they're no friends on mine, but it would put *very significant* questions in my mind about how serious Israel was about coming to any sort of peaceful solution, since I would take such an action as indicating they had bargained in extremely bad faith.

It would also likely kill any chance of a successful peace settlement for years (I'm not saying it's likely as things stand now, either). And why shouldn't it? It would further increase the already massive amount of distrust between the sides.

It would likely also doom any and all Israeli soldiers captured in the future to either immediate execution or perpetually being a hostage.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 11, 2011 2:00:44pm

re: #9 _RememberTonyC

And if you don't see the connection between Schalit's status as a prisoner of hamas and israel's reticence about "jumping ugly" on hamas, I don't even know how to respond.

Well, I don't either, if you don't see how doing so would actually encourage Hamas to kidnap Israelis. Hell, just making this deal does that, let alone also underling the fact that if Hamas hold Israelis prisoner they're safer from attack.

Do you really want to create a situation where Hamas thinks they key to Israel not attacking them is holding Israeli prisoners? You're rewarding the behavior.

What, me worry? Tue, Oct 11, 2011 2:34:24pm

Hamas needs no encouragement to kidnap Israelis. Israelis were recently warned not to enter/cross the Sinai because of violence and specifically kidnapping after Mubarak was ousted. All of which culminated in the bombings last August.

And Shalit was still a prisoner so nothing Israel does or doesn't do has much effect. The fact that Israel exists as a Jewish state is all they ever need.

So who knows how the safe return of Shalit will play out. 1000 prisoners including Barghouti? Looks like the fighting isn't going away anytime soon.

Tony is correct about dictators though or evil regimes. I was re-reading Natan Sharansky last night and Tony reminded me again about fear based v. freedom based societies. Unfortunately, I have to get going now :( but here's a good conversation with Sharansky about appeasing dictators and forcing them out of existence.

[Link: www.pbs.org...]

Obdicut Tue, Oct 11, 2011 2:36:54pm

re: #12 marjoriemoon

I can never stand those points of view that just split societies conveniently into two groups. It's always over-convenient bullshit, to me, like the whole 'shame-based/guilt-based society' thing.

All I'm pointing out is that acting as though the only thing stopping Israel from attacking Hamas en force is when Hamas holds a hostage, that's a bad thing.

_RememberTonyC Tue, Oct 11, 2011 3:02:30pm

With all due respect to those who disagree with me on this, I believe you are (perhaps unintentionally) creating a sense of moral equivalence between Israel and its terrorist "neighbor" hamas. hamas is a terrorist organization and there is no sense of fairness or morality in the way it acts towards Israel. And as a result it deserves any punishment Israel can deliver for the crime of kidnapping Schalit, not allowing visits from the Red Cross, and its many other acts of terror. If "people who might otherwise support Israel" abandon it because it shows hamas what payback is like, their support was probably pretty weak to begin with. And those who feel Israel needs to treat a terrorist organization with some standard of decency or morality will find little agreement from me. Maybe those who support hamas need to pay a price for that support. President Obama has zapped many terrorists and supporters of terrorism. Is anyone here upset about that? I am not.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 11, 2011 3:05:51pm

re: #14 _RememberTonyC

With all due respect to those who disagree with me on this, I believe you are (perhaps unintentionally) creating a sense of moral equivalence between Israel and its terrorist "neighbor" hamas

Nope. I'm more saying that holding back from attacks as long as Palestine has a prisoner is a bad idea.

_RememberTonyC Tue, Oct 11, 2011 3:12:39pm

re: #15 Obdicut

Nope. I'm more saying that holding back from attacks as long as Palestine has a prisoner is a bad idea.

I agree on that, but in realistic terms I do feel that Israel may have felt more restricted in its potential actions than they will if Schalit is freed. And I fully expect hamas to try more kidnappings regardless of Israel's action or non-action vs hamas targets. Why shouldn't they? They get a 1000 to 1 return on their hostages. So if the Israelis act to degrade their capabilities when no Israelis are held captive by hamas, I see no reason to hold back. Treat terrorists with no mercy and don't just retaliate when they attack. Sometimes the best defense is a good offense.

What, me worry? Tue, Oct 11, 2011 3:52:17pm

re: #13 Obdicut

I can never stand those points of view that just split societies conveniently into two groups. It's always over-convenient bullshit, to me, like the whole 'shame-based/guilt-based society' thing.

All I'm pointing out is that acting as though the only thing stopping Israel from attacking Hamas en force is when Hamas holds a hostage, that's a bad thing.

As to the last point, Tony addressed it in #16, although I don't know if it's actually true! It does make some sense, but Israel, of course, knows exactly what the repercussions may be.

I found this small Israeli blog which has an interesting comment about "why now". Just as food for thought:

An interesting discussion that I heard in the car just a short while ago on Israeli Reshet Bet radio channel sheds some light onto why the deal looks like it is about to be closed now as opposed to any other time in the past or future.

The interviewee (I apologize for not remembering his name, but I was driving as I heard the interview, but he is a defence expert) explained that Hamas is under great pressure to bring some sort of “victory” to their supporters because their main backer, Syria, is in dire straits with, I quote, “the ground burning beneath their feet”. This has led them to be more flexible in their demands of Israel. Egypt too is under pressure to prove its worth as a Middle East power broker since its ill-fated revolution has not worked out quite as was planned, and has therefore been persuaded of the necessity of using its efforts to mediate effectively between Israel and Hamas. And of course Israeli PM Netanyahu is permanently under pressure from his coalition partners, the opposition and the Israeli public to bring Gilad home.

What, me worry? Tue, Oct 11, 2011 4:29:13pm

As to Sharansky, a man arrested for protesting the treatment of Jews in the Soviet Union, imprisoned for 9 years in the Gulag, some of which in hard labor, but most of which was in solitary confinement, I think he knows more about fear v. freedom than any of us combined.

He defines fear based societies as those that do not withstand the "town square test". Can you go to the town square and speak your mind, particularly if it's against your government? Think Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Gaza or the West Bank. He talks a lot about what a dictator has to do to keep his people in fear - part of which is blaming an external enemy which is always a free society (usually the U.S. or Israel).

He also discusses how the rest of the free world should treat these dictators and he is adamantly against appeasement. Any compromise with a dictator should be conditioned on the human rights/freedom of their citizens and relations with the international community.

It's your prerogative to agree with Sharansky or not. I think he's brilliant.

RAY SUAREZ: So a little less compromise, a little less appeasement, a little higher standards, is that what you're saying, in your relationships with these opponents?

NATAN SHARANSKY: No appeasement at all. Compromise when it is absolutely necessary for your own security survival, and the clear linkage between human rights and international relations, clear understanding that your security depends on the freedom of those people.

That it's not important how these leaders of that country treat you; It's important how the leaders of that country treat their own people, because democracy which hates you is much better than dictator who loves you.

RAY SUAREZ: But can any country choose what its enemies decide to do? Can any country require certain things of its enemies?

NATAN SHARANSKY: No, but of course you cannot demand from the other country what kind of regime they will choose or the leaders. But if that country needs your support, if it wants to get your assistance, to get your money, to get your technology, to get your cooperation, you can put conditions.

And these conditions have to be connected not with the fact how you treat me but how you treat your own people. It's important to understand this problem that we cannot impose democracy, it's a strange thing. Yes, of course you cannot impose democracy, you cannot force people to be free, but you can impose dictatorship.

And you are very often imposing dictatorship by supporting dictators, by supporting the dictators because you believe it's good for your security and that's why you support or impose the dictator, or help to impose dictatorship on the other people. Then it's bad for those people but it's also bad for your security.

Obdicut Tue, Oct 11, 2011 4:35:28pm

re: #18 marjoriemoon

You couldn't go to the public square as a black man and tell the truth in pre-1960s america. Were we a fear-based society up until then?

What, me worry? Thu, Oct 13, 2011 6:31:38am

re: #19 Obdicut

You couldn't go to the public square as a black man and tell the truth in pre-1960s america. Were we a fear-based society up until then?

As to the U.S. as a whole, no. We don't have a dictator and we have a constitution and laws that makes sure everyone is treated equally and fairly. Such laws and government structure do not exist in Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Gaza, etc. Unfortunately, we also have states that didn't abide by these laws. The fact that a black person could not go to the public square and speak his/her mind pre-1960s shows us how the balance can be easily abused.

But that we did finally pass civil rights legislation, that we did something about the disparities in our system proves that we are a free society.

What, me worry? Thu, Oct 13, 2011 6:43:06am

"Free society" doesn't mean "utopian society". Sharansky (if you read him) is talking about how democratic governments (run as a republic) protect their citizens not the government, even if you have to sometimes fight for those protections.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!