Since the conclusion last week of the Goldwasser-Regev-Kuntar deal, several leading commentators have argued that the Israeli families’ campaigns to free their sons hampered the deal, setting a higher price for the Israeli side. They accuse the media of playing up the personal tragedy that has befallen the families over the strategic interests of the country. The commentators urge the media and the family and friends of captured soldier Gilad Schalit to learn the lessons of the Hizbullah swap, and to lower their profile. They say that the national-strategic interests of dealing with the Hamas terrorist entity in Gaza and its long-term effects on the region far outweigh the personal-private interests of a family wanting to get their son back from captivity. Don’t confuse the big picture with the family photograph, they say.
This view frames Gilad Schalit as an IDF soldier, captured in battle, and whose return should be negotiated within the larger strategic picture of the Israel-Hamas-PA matrix. He is not my brother, my son, my army buddy or the boy next door, they say.
To the Schalit family, their friends and Gilad’s army buddies, Gilad is first and foremost a son, a brother, an army buddy, whose negotiated release should be prioritized over the long-term plan of how to deal with Hamas. The Hamas problem is not going away so quickly, there is time to work out the bigger picture. They are against the framing of this issue as purely the personal versus the national. They see Gilad as part of the national, a part that can be dealt with easier and quicker than the bigger picture. The Gilad camp wants the Israeli government, who wants to make a deal, to make up its mind quicker. Continue reading →