RSS
Why Israel had no choice but to make a ‘bargain with the devil’
(JTA) — In pressing for a deal that could see the release of 50 of the more than 200 hostages held in Gaza in return for a four-day pause in hostilities the release of 150 Palestinian prisoners, Israel’s National Unity Party Minister Benny Gantz described the return of the hostages as a “moral imperative and part of the resilience that enables us to win wars.”
But what if negotiating with Hamas, considered a terrorist group by Israel, creates a dangerous precedent and further encourages its enemies to view hostage-taking as a weapon? By putting its war on Hamas on a four-day hold, does Israel appear to be giving in to an enemy it has vowed to destroy? And by releasing three Palestinian prisoners for every hostage returned, does Israel risk allowing violent prisoners to go free?
These are the unbearable tensions Israeli and American negotiators faced in the leadup to the deal, announced Tuesday night. To understand the dilemmas and pressures Israel is facing, I spoke with law professor Robert Mnookin, director of the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard Law School and author of the 2010 book, “Bargaining with the Devil: When to Negotiate, When to Fight.” Mnookin advises governments and corporations on negotiating strategy and conflict resolution and has written about Israel’s controversial hostage swaps with Hamas and other adversaries.
He is also the author, in 2019, of “The Jewish American Paradox: Embracing Choice in a Changing World,” a book about Jewish peoplehood and identity.
We spoke Wednesday about the political pressure on Israel to strike a deal, how religious and national values play a role in hostage negotiations and why a “no-win” scenario is sometimes the best you can do.
The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Before we get into the details of this specific hostage exchange, I wonder if you could provide a theoretical framework for hostage negotiation, especially with an enemy deemed terrorists. What should any power consider before embarking on negotiations essentially with kidnappers?
One hard question, of course, is, are they likely to keep to the deal that you make with them? Kidnappers aren’t necessarily a reliable partner to a negotiation.
A second big issue is the question of precedent. What kind of precedent are they setting by being willing to negotiate? For many years, the United States government took the position that it would not negotiate with terrorists to try to release kidnap victims. And there was a lot of tension [between the government and victims’ families]. The stated policy was often informally violated by the U.S. government, that is, they sometimes did participate. And in fact, it turns out that European countries were negotiating with various — often Islamic — terrorist groups in the last decade, were paying money to get people released. The United States wasn’t and it changed its formal policy.
That they would pay ransom?
Not necessarily, but they no longer had an absolute policy that there should not be any contact between the government and terrorist groups with respect to kidnap victims.
You wrote an op-ed critical of the decision in 2011 by an earlier Netanyahu government to release about 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hamas in 2006 and held hostage in Gaza. What made you call that a “crazy deal” and what might be different about the current situation?
There were lots of things wrong with that deal. First, the price was absurdly high. Second, it set a terrible precedent. And third, as it turns out, that deal strengthened Hamas and weakened the Palestinian Authority, because the Israeli government was negotiating with Hamas, who made sure the Palestinian Authority would get no credit. And comparatively few of the Palestinian Authority’s prisoners were released. And finally, it turns out of course, that among those released are at least some who now are apparently leaders of Hamas.
On the other hand, obviously, I’m thrilled that Shalit was released.
Robert Mnookin directs the Harvard Negotiation Project at Harvard Law School. (Jon Chase/Harvard University News Office)
When you heard the terms of the deal Tuesday night and Wednesday morning, how did it strike you as someone who has an expertise in negotiations? Was there a winner? Was there a loser?
Well, listen, these kinds of negotiations often involve tragic choices. Who could not be very happy that women and children are being released? On the other hand, while we don’t really know the details of who’s being released by the Israeli government, I gather many of them are minors who participated in rather violent acts or very violent acts.
Should Israel worry that negotiating over hostages in this case is going to encourage its enemies to engage in more kidnapping?
They absolutely should.
Israel has a national ethos of returning its soldiers and protecting its citizens above all else — including by taking actions, like lopsided hostage swaps, that might endanger soldiers and civilians in the future. Do these sort of emotional goals — for the sake of national solidarity or morale, or even the religious imperative of pidyon shvuyim, or redeeming hostages — strike negotiation experts as irrational?
I don’t want to call it irrational because it may reflect and reinforce values that are really quite important. Israel has a tradition that no soldier would be left behind. Given that Israel has an army in which nearly all Jewish people participate, a truly citizens’ army, the Shalit deal was, for all its flaws, a valuable reinforcement of that ideology.
Israel is also a small country, and the degree of separation among its citizens is incredibly small. I imagine that any idea that it won’t negotiate with terrorists is impossible to maintain politically and morally when there are so many stories and they are so personal.
This is something I talked about in my oped many years ago, which is a very important psychological finding that people, in order to save identifiable individuals, are willing to take actions that are far more costly than actions that could save many more unspecified individuals. The classic example of this is when an individual is trapped in a coal mine: It becomes national news, and rescuers might spend millions of dollars to get them out — while the same government authorities are unwilling to spend anywhere near an equivalent amount on safety measures that would ultimately save many more people.
What we’ve seen in Israel, with so many victims, the political pressure is very, very substantial. You’ve seen these posters of all the individual kidnap victims. The families are trying to personalize it — appropriately, because it’s a good strategy. My wife last night was brought to tears with interviews of the family of one of the victims because their story was so sad. There’s this little girl, for example, who’s going to be 4 on her birthday, which is Friday. [Abigail Edan was kidnapped on Oct. 7; Hamas killed her parents, Roy and Smadar Edan; she is a U.S. citizen and President Joe Biden said he expects her to be released.]
Of course a government should be willing to work very hard to get her release. How can you feel they should not do so? These are very hard choices that governments have to face.
What did each side achieve in this deal?
What the Israelis achieved, of course, is that some fraction of the 200-plus hostages are being released and that there are going to be children and women among them. And the suspension of hostilities from Israel’s perspective is comparatively brief. As for Hamas, they’re getting credit for the release, they’re getting a rest in terms of hostilities and there’s going to be substantial humanitarian aid.
The other thing that I think is interesting about this arrangement, of course, in part goes to the reliability issue. They’re doing an arrangement where the hostages are going to be released partially each day, which is a way of reinforcing the ceasefire. Whereas if they were all released right in the beginning, Hamas would be taking the risks that the Israelis might immediately resume hostilities.
Do you accept the idea that a successful negotiation is one in which both sides are disappointed?
No. If the people are rational actors, it should create an outcome that each side views as superior to what their best alternative otherwise would be. Now, it is often the case that the negotiated deal is disappointing in comparison with a perfect world. But on the other hand, almost by definition, if you and I settle a terrible dispute, we wouldn’t have made a deal if we didn’t think it was superior to our expected alternative. And what’s often true is sometimes you and I could settle a conflict with an arrangement that makes us feel positive about doing business together in the future.
—
The post Why Israel had no choice but to make a ‘bargain with the devil’ appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
UN Refuses to Blame Hezbollah for Attacking Peacekeepers in Lebanon
UN peacekeepers (UNIFIL) vehicles drive in Marjayoun, near the border with Israel, amid ongoing hostilities between Hezbollah and Israeli forces, southern Lebanon, Oct. 11, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Karamallah Daher
The United Nations announced on Tuesday that four Ghanaian peacekeepers were wounded “most likely by non-state actors within Lebanon,” noticeably omitting any reference to the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah, which wields significant influence across the country and was identified by Israeli forces as responsible for the rocket attack.
“Four Ghanaian peacekeepers on duty sustained injuries as a rocket — fired most likely by non-State actors within Lebanon — hit their base ‘UNP 5-42’ in the east of the village of Ramyah,” the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) said in a statement.
The UN force added that its “peacekeepers and facilities were targeted in three separate incidents in south Lebanon.” The attacks were so severe that three peacekeepers were transferred to a local hospital, UNIFIL noted.
The peacekeeping mission added that its “Sector West Headquarters” in the southern Lebanese village of Shama also endured an attack from several rockets on Tuesday, adding that no peacekeepers were physically harmed.
UNIFIL claimed that one of its bases has been targeted by so-called “non-state actors” twice over the past week. In addition, the international force said that “when a UNIFIL patrol was passing through a road northeast of the village of Khirbat Silim, an armed person directly fired at the patrol”
“The pattern of regular attacks — direct or indirect — against peacekeepers must end immediately,” UNIFIL concluded.
The UN force’s apparent refusal to name Hezbollah received widespread scrutiny on social media, where many users noted that the Iran-backed terrorist organization has been involved in active combat near UNIFIL facilities and is by far the most powerful and widespread non-state actor in Lebanon.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said on Tuesday that Hezbollah was responsible for the rocket attacks on both Ramyah and Shama.
According to the IDF, the UNIFIL base in Shama, was hit by several rockets launched by Hezbollah from the Maaliyeh area. A source from Italy’s defense ministry told AFP that “Hezbollah was responsible for the attack,” which involved eight rockets hitting the headquarters of the Italian contingent of UNIFL. No injuries were reported.
Last month, the IDF said that Hezbollah had fired dozens of rockets and missiles at Israeli communities and forces from terrorist compounds embedded near UNIFIL posts in southern Lebanon. Israeli officials have repeatedly warned UN peacekeepers that Hezbollah is weaponizing their presence in the Iran-backed terrorist organization’s war against the Jewish state, using them as human shields.
Despite its omission of Hezbollah, UNIFIL has not shied away from calling out Israel for allegedly attacking peacekeepers in the region.
In an October statement bemoaning “escalation” of violence in southern Lebanon, the UN force stated that “rockets continue to be launched towards Israel” without naming Hezbollah, which has been targeting northern Israel with barrages of rockets, missiles, and drones for the past year. However, in the next sentence, UNIFIL blasted “incursions from Israel into Lebanon.” The mission also condemned the IDF for allegedly firing “its weapon toward an observation tower at UNIFIL’s headquarters.”
Israeli officials have long accused the UN more broadly of having a bias against the Jewish state. Last year, the UN General Assembly condemned Israel twice as often as it did all other countries. Meanwhile, of all the country-specific resolutions passed by the UNHRC, nearly half have condemned Israel, a seemingly disproportionate focus on the lone democracy in the Middle East.
Weeks following last year’s Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas on Israel, the UN adopted a resolution calling for a “ceasefire” between Israel and the Palestinian terrorist group. The UN failed to pass a measure condemning the Hamas atrocities.
On Tuesday, UN spokesperson Stéphane Dujarric de la Rivière refused to assign blame to any party for allegedly ransacking and looting 90 humanitarian aid trucks in Gaza. Hamas, which rules Gaza, has a long history of stealing humanitarian aid intended for the civilians of the beleaguered enclave, although it’s unclear who was responsible for the recent looting.
“When people, when armed people, try to take over control of a vehicle and goods, we’re not asking questions and they’re not wearing insignias,” he said to reporters.
The spokesperson added that the UN will not accept any security from Israel, stating that its employees would be “an even greater target if we were surrounded by armed soldiers.” Nonetheless, he insisted that the Jewish state still “has a responsibility” to ensure that the UN’s workers and humanitarian aid are safe.
The post UN Refuses to Blame Hezbollah for Attacking Peacekeepers in Lebanon first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Netanyahu, in Gaza, Vows Retribution for Those Who Harm Hostages, Offers Safe Passage and Reward for Info
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks at a memorial ceremony for those murdered by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, and those who fell in the “Iron Sword” war, at the Knesset, the Parliament, in Jerusalem, Oct. 28, 2024. Photo: DEBBIE HILL/Pool via REUTERS
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed during a trip to Gaza on Tuesday to “hunt down” terrorists who harmed the hostages being held in the Palestinian enclave, offering a hefty financial reward and safe passage for anyone willing to provide information leading to an abductee’s return.
“To those who are holding our hostages: Anyone who dares to harm our hostages will have blood on their head. We will hunt you down and get you,” Netanyahu said in a video in Hebrew recorded on Gaza’s beach along the Mediterranean Sea.
However, the Israeli premier added, “whoever brings us a hostage will be given a safe way, for him and his family, to leave. We will also give a reward of $5 million for each kidnapped person. You choose — the choice is yours — but the result will be the same. We’ll get them all back.”
ראש הממשלה בנימין נתניהו ושר הביטחון ישראל כ”ץ, יחד עם הרמטכ”ל רב אלוף הרצי הלוי וראש השב”כ רונן בר ביקרו היום מסדרון נצרים שבעזה.
ראש הממשלה נתניהו: “החמאס לא יהיה יותר בעזה. מי שיעז לפגוע בחטופינו – דמו בראשו. נרדוף ונשיג אתכם.” pic.twitter.com/EwFB2hd9aE
— ראש ממשלת ישראל (@IsraeliPM_heb) November 19, 2024
Netanyahu made the comments during a visit to the Netzarim Corridor, which splits Gaza between north and south, along with Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi, and Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) director Ronen Bar.
“Hamas will no longer be in Gaza,” Netanyahu said, vowing that the Palestinian terrorist group that had ruled Gaza won’t have a future role governing the enclave, which borders southern Israel. He added that Israel had destroyed the Islamist group’s military capabilities.
Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists launched the ongoing war with their invasion of southern Israel last Oct. 7. During the onslaught, the terrorists murdered 1,200 people, wounded thousands more, and kidnapped over 250 hostages while perpetrating mass sexual violence against the Israeli people.
Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities.
Katz said on Tuesday that the return of the 101 hostages still being held by Hamas terrorists remains the “most important mission,” promising that Israel will “complete its mission” in Gaza.
“We need to make sure that Hamas does not rule here ‘the day after,’” he added.
On Monday, Netanyahu reportedly told the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of Israeli’s parliament, known as the Knesset, that he believes about 50 of the 101 remaining hostages in Gaza are still alive.
The remarks came after Netanyahu on Sunday called an emergency meeting following Hamas’s rejection of all proposals for ceasefires and hostage release deals currently on the table, according to Israel’s Channel 13 News.
Hamas’s leadership has severed all contact with those actually holding the hostages for security reasons “to protect the important negotiation card,” the Qatari-owned Al-Araby Al-Jadeed news outlet reported this week, citing a Hamas source.
Talks over a potential ceasefire and hostage release deal brokered by the US, Egypt, and Qatar have floundered in recent weeks, with American officials questioning whether Hamas wants an agreement. The terrorist group has insisted any arrangement must include an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, an outcome that Jerusalem firmly opposes until its war goals are achieved.
The post Netanyahu, in Gaza, Vows Retribution for Those Who Harm Hostages, Offers Safe Passage and Reward for Info first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Israel’s Operations in Lebanon Enabling Steps to Return Displaced Citizens to Their Homes: Think Tanks
Smoke billows over Khiam, amid ongoing hostilities between Hezbollah and Israeli forces, as pictured from Marjayoun, near the border with Israel, Oct. 29, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Karamallah Daher
Israel’s expanded military operations against the Iran-backed terrorist organization Hezbollah in Lebanon have enabled Jerusalem to take steps to return displaced Israeli citizens to their homes in the northern part of the country, according to researchers at two leading US think tanks.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), in conjunction with the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project (CTP), explained the developments on Sunday in their daily Iran Update, “which provides insights into Iranian and Iranian-sponsored activities that undermine regional stability and threaten US forces and interests.”
According to the report, “Israeli Army Radio reported that the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] has removed all military checkpoints and roadblocks on roads near the Israel-Lebanon border that have been closed to civilians over the past year.”
This was able to happen because of Israeli operations in Lebanon that have reduced the threat of anti-tank fire and other munitions targeting northern Israel.
“The IDF’s re-opening of roads along the border,” ISW and CTP explained, “indicates that the IDF has assessed that Israeli operations have significantly reduced the threat of anti-tank fire and other short-range munitions enough to allow civilians to return to previously targeted areas.”
Specifically, it has been Israel’s ground operations in Lebanon, and “control of Lebanese territory” that have led to these steps, according to an IDF official who spoke to Israeli Army Radio.
In mid-September, the Israeli war cabinet expanded its war goals to include returning tens of thousands of Israeli citizens to their homes in the north after they were forced to flee amid unrelenting fire from Hezbollah in neighboring southern Lebanon.
“The possibility for an agreement is running out as Hezbollah continues to tie itself to Hamas, and refuses to end the conflict,” Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant said at the time. “Therefore, the only way left to ensure the return of Israel’s northern communities to their homes will be via military action.”
On Oct. 8, 2023, Hezbollah joined Hamas’s war on Israel, pummeling northern Israeli communities almost daily with barrages of drones, rockets, and missiles from southern Lebanon, where it wields significant political and military influence. One such attack killed 12 children in the small Druze town of Majdal Shams.
About 70,000 Israelis have been forced to evacuate Israel’s north during that time due to the unrelenting attacks. Most of them have spent the past 13 months living in hotels in other areas of the country.
Since Israel began its widened campaign against Hezbollah in Lebanon, it has achieved major successes. It has taken out the entire top echelon of Hezbollah, including its leader Hassan Nasrallah, along with his successor. This, along with other successful operations, has put significant pressure on Hezbollah to come to a diplomatic agreement to end hostilities — which could happen in the coming weeks.
The post Israel’s Operations in Lebanon Enabling Steps to Return Displaced Citizens to Their Homes: Think Tanks first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login