On the Palestinian Regimes: Ending the Naïve Attempts at their Acquittal

By: Jesse Shore

The challenge here is ensuring that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are held to account and their corruption exposed.

The tumultuous events currently transpiring between the Israelis and the Palestinians can find their genesis in last month's prisoner exchange. In exchange for one captive soldier, Israel returned over one thousand prisoners to the areas governed by the Palestinian Hamas and Fatah regimes. Notwithstanding the unusual and awkward agreement between Hamas and the Israeli Supreme Court to get on with the exchange, the public debate continues: Should Israel have set free proud culprits of terrorism, individuals who are self-congratulating murderers of Israeli citizens? What of the prisoners whose arrests are based on contested allegations? Perhaps Israel should have negotiated for the release of First Sgt Gilad Shalit five years sooner?

These are relevant questions that are difficult to answer. But the deal was done. It is time to move on. In fact, many of the questions about the prisoner exchange emerge from one, simple concern: What will happen next?

It has been several weeks since the exchange. Though it is prudent to asses the challenges of possible future prisoner exchanges, suggesting answers to past negotiations is likely to yield nothing more than an opportunity for a superficial “I told you so.” Now, those who care for the peace process must direct their efforts toward the following tasks: an accurate portrayal of the prisoner exchange and a clear presentation of what is now unfolding between Israel and the Palestinian regimes. The challenge here is ensuring that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are held to account and their corruption exposed.

Regarding an accurate portrayal of the prisoner exchange, some believe that the unbalanced proportion of the prisoner swap (a ratio of 1 to 1024) reflects poorly on Israel's concern for Palestinian welfare. In response to discussions about the swap, a unanimous blogger wrote, “1024 to1! Interesting ratio of human value in occupied Palestine.” The sentiment being peddled here engenders the tired complaint against Israelis as uncaring or sinister. It is an obtuse understanding of the reality that Israel does, in fact, care more for one of her soldiers than for a large group of Palestinians. Before we begin the condemning, however, let us make the converse statement: that Palestinians care more for their own than for Israeli citizens. This is uncontroversial and there is nothing wrong with it. To warp this remark into some sort of accusation against the Palestinians illustrates the absurdity of condemning Israel on the same grounds. A charge like this against Israel is based on a twisted rationale, relieving the Hamas regime from it's culpability of perpetuating an open war on Israeli citizens and soldiers alike. Here, a naïve accuser places accountability on Israel's actions of self-defense instead of the incitement to violence by the Hamas regime and the Islamic Jihad that permeates Gaza. The detainees in Israeli prisons are an unpleasant result of Palestinian incitement.

Despite the principle that every nation reserves the right to look after it's own citizens first and foremost, the sad fact is that Israel is consistently denied the opportunity to do anything else. Would that Hamas make an about face on it's policies and pursue a peaceful coexistence with Israel, Israelis would be more than willing to reciprocate. Instead, Hamas openly commits itself to the grotesque vision of a Palestinian state as the result of a holy war, as stated in its charter, “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”

Those who sympathize with the families of Palestinian prisoners should guard themselves from the view that Israelis do not care for a peaceful development of Palestinian leadership. It does not take much thought to realize that it is in Israel's own interest to see the emergence of a peaceful and productive Palestinian government. The behavior of the three parties, Israel, Hamas, and Fatah, after the prisoner exchange is very telling of who is sincere in their efforts for peace.

Israelis have collectively celebrated the return of Shalit, they have also lamented the release of convicted terrorists. Hamas has celebrated the return of their prisoners too, but with the accompanying chants of a military victory, renewed commitments of terrorism against Israeli civilians under the guise of continuing a “resistance,” and a promise by Ahmed Jabari, head of Hama's military wing, to continue to abduct Israeli soldiers.

Fatah has celebrated the return of loved ones to their homes as well, but remain true to their out of hand dismissal of the Israeli government's constant appeal for negotiations. This is the result of the prisoner exchange. For any proponent of Palestinian nationalism, the shameful and disappointing conduct of Hamas and Fatah must be acknowledged before real progress can occur.