An opinion piece today in the Jerusalem Post, by Michael Freund:
Once upon a time, and it truly seems like it was a very long time ago, the State of Israel knew how to take swift and decisive action in order to protect its citizens and punish its foes.
I know, dear reader, that may be hard for you to believe, particularly in light of recent events. After all, Israel has spent much of the past decade in retreat, ignominiously capitulating to terrorism and turning over vast swathes of territory to Palestinian control.
With Cpl. Gilad Schalit being held captive by Palestinians in Gaza for the past year, and the residents of Sderot and the Western Negev dodging Kassam rockets on a daily basis, it is easy to forget that words such as heroism, daring and bravery once exemplified our government’s approach towards combating terror.
None of these qualities were on display the other day at Sharm e-Sheikh, of course, where Prime Minister Ehud Olmert saw fit to heap concession after concession on the ineffectual and increasingly irrelevant Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
After agreeing to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars to the Abbas-led regime, and to strengthen the armed Fatah gangs loyal to him, the premier presented his Palestinian counterpart with an unexpected parting gift.
“As a gesture of goodwill to the Palestinians,” Olmert declared, “I decided today that I’ll bring to the Israeli government at its next meeting a recommendation to release 250 prisoners from Fatah without blood on their hands.”
Then, in what passes for Israeli resolve and determination these days, the premier insisted that the Fatah terrorists would be freed, but only if “they sign commitments not to become involved again in terrorism.” Phew. And I thought they would be let go for nothing.
Apparently, it didn’t dawn on the Prime Minister to link the release of Palestinian terrorists with freedom for Gilad Schalit, or to condition any further movement on the diplomatic front with progress towards his return home.
Instead, the fact that a young Israeli Jew serving his country was abducted 12 months ago by a group of thugs was treated as if it was a pesky and tiresome nuisance, rather than a substantive and fundamental matter of principle.
In light of the Prime Minister’s sorry display, it is especially important that we recall the anniversary of an important event that took place just over three decades ago this week, one which offers us a potent and timely reminder of just how terrorism should truly be fought.
IT WAS 31 years ago today, on June 27, 1976, that armed gunmen from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, together with some German accomplices, hijacked Air France flight 139, diverting it to Libya and then on to the city of Entebbe, in Idi Amin’s Uganda.
As the world looked on, the terrorists proceeded to separate out the Jewish and Israeli passengers, threatening to kill them if Palestinian prisoners being held in Israeli jails were not set free.
Back then, however, Israel was not yet in the habit of yielding to terrorist demands. No international summits were convened at Sharm e-Sheikh, no “gestures” were made to the terrorists, nor were any tax receipts transferred into their coffers.
Instead, Israel reacted precisely as it should have, by launching a stunning military raid on July 4, 1976, freeing virtually all the captives and bringing the situation to a sudden and dramatic end.
You can read the rest here.
The tough talk is great, but what would such action get in the end? Israel found that taking and holding Gaza and the West Bank didn’t work either. The lightening strike is the easy part. Staying and maintaining peace is the hard part (ask any American soldier in Iraq).
The Palestinians aren’t going to vanish into thin air. There is no way Israel could expel them. They have no desire to bring them into full Israeli citizenship and give them 40% of the vote.
Every destruction they have brought on the Palestinians have only fed the militant Islamic forces at the expense of the moderates. The educated and the Christians are leaving (if they can)
I know the two state solution is full of problems, but what other option is there?
Al – I appreciate your thoughts. In regard to your final statement, a very important question is if the problems in the two-state solution are in fact something that Israel can live with. If it means that Israel is living with a declared enemy able to import and shoot missiles freely at nearly every major population center, then I would argue that a two-state solution is not a good one. I don’t know if that would happen, but we don’t have to look to distant history to see that reality; it’s occurring as we speak from Gaza. There is no reason to believe that if Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders that the Palestinians would treat them with peace. They sure didn’t before 1967. Clearly there are no good and easy solutions, but status quo might actually be better than “progress.”
I wonder what would be done if some faction in a European country decided it didn’t want to be part of the country anymore and started committing terrorist acts in the country. Oh, wait, it has happened. See Northern Ireland and the Basqes in Spain. These terrorists were dealt with swiftly and decisively. I don’t see the government of Spain releasing Basqe terrorists and funding thier violence, yet this is what the “world community” demands of Israel.