What Israeli Diplomacy Can Tell Us About the Bergdahl Trade

Michael Oren, former Israeli ambassador to the United States, on Israel’s prisoner swaps.

Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., speaks during an interview in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2012. Oren said that sanctions on Iran came too late and have failed to slow down their nuclear program.
Bloomberg via Getty Images
Clara Ritger
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Clara Ritger
June 12, 2014, 5 p.m.

When Pres­id­ent Obama traded Taliban sus­pects for Army Sgt. Bowe Ber­g­dahl, the White House ex­pec­ted a happy home­com­ing. In­stead it got a na­tion­al de­bate. The United States is not alone in con­front­ing the per­ils of pris­on­er swaps. Close ally Is­rael has for years made a series of ex­changes with the Palestini­ans that many have seen as dis­pro­por­tion­ate: The 2011 deal for sol­dier Gil­ad Shalit cost the Is­rael­is 1,027 of their pris­on­ers.

Former Is­raeli Am­bas­sad­or to the United States Mi­chael Oren spoke with Na­tion­al Journ­al from Tel Aviv. Ed­ited ex­cerpts fol­low.

Does the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s de­cision to re­lease five pris­on­ers for Ber­g­dahl set a pre­ced­ent for fu­ture ne­go­ti­ations?

The Is­raeli ex­per­i­ence has been that it does. Is­rael, over the course of his­tory, has re­leased about 7,000 ter­ror­ist pris­on­ers for something like a total of 19 Is­rael­is.

Time re­por­ted that a Taliban com­mand­er said the deal cre­ates an in­cent­ive for them to hunt down and cap­ture more Amer­ic­an sol­diers. Was trad­ing Ber­g­dahl worth cre­at­ing this in­cent­ive?

We have a very sim­il­ar de­bate in this coun­try. What has pre­vailed over the years is that Is­rael has a cit­izen’s army. We send our kids out to de­fend the coun­try, and when they go out to de­fend the coun­try they have to know that if, God for­bid, they fall pris­on­er, their coun­try will do everything in its power to bring them home. So it be­comes part of the un­writ­ten con­tract between the state and its army. I listen to the state­ments made by spokespeople from the [Obama] ad­min­is­tra­tion, and they make very sim­il­ar ar­gu­ments.

What about the con­tract between the state and its people? The pris­on­ers re­leased are known to hurt cit­izens, and some have gone back to ter­ror­ist activ­ity.

There is no easy solu­tion here. There is al­ways a trade-off. Our sis­ter-in-law was killed in a ter­ror­ist bomb­ing here, and if those re­spons­ible for the ter­ror­ist bomb­ing were re­leased in an ex­change, it would be acutely pain­ful for my fam­ily.

So what’s the right call?

When I was am­bas­sad­or, we did a pris­on­er ex­change for one cor­por­al, Gil­ad Shalit, and we re­leased over a thou­sand ter­ror­ist pris­on­ers who were re­spons­ible for the deaths of hun­dreds of Is­rael­is. I think the Is­raeli so­ci­ety made a de­cision in the case of Gil­ad Shalit that he had to be brought home, even at the very, very high price.

Is there any­thing the U.S. can learn from the Is­raeli ex­per­i­ence?

We know from our ex­per­i­ence that a per­cent­age of these re­leased pris­on­ers will go back to en­ga­ging in ter­ror. There’s no guar­an­tee that they can’t. We have to ap­proach that with open eyes. You keep up your guard and try to mon­it­or the move­ments to the best of your cap­ab­il­it­ies. That’s been the Is­raeli ex­per­i­ence, and we have re­arres­ted some of them.

In Is­rael, fam­il­ies have been pub­licly cam­paign­ing to get their chil­dren back. That’s not something the U.S. gov­ern­ment faced be­fore Bowe Ber­g­dahl’s re­lease. How did that pub­lic pres­sure shape the deals in Is­rael?

The dy­nam­ics are very dif­fer­ent. I don’t know how many Amer­ic­ans knew the name Bowe Ber­g­dahl be­fore last week. But every Is­raeli — every Is­raeli — knew the name Gil­ad Shalit. His name was on every bill­board, kiosk, tele­phone pole. His par­ents had a vi­gil out­side the prime min­is­ter’s of­fice that was very well at­ten­ded. There were marches for his re­lease. There were bal­loon fest­ivals ded­ic­ated to him. He was an hon­or­ary cit­izen of New Or­leans, Bal­timore, and Pitt­s­burgh. He was al­ways re­ferred to as “our Gil­ad Shalit.” When I went to lunch once with his fath­er, we lit­er­ally couldn’t have a con­ver­sa­tion be­cause people no­ti­cing us from out­side would come in to hug him. The own­er of the res­taur­ant kept pil­ing food on the table, and he wouldn’t ac­cept any pay­ment. That’s very dif­fer­ent than the Amer­ic­an aware­ness of Bowe Ber­g­dahl. And I don’t think the cir­cum­stances of his cap­ture is very per­tin­ent. It’s just the way the so­ci­ety relates to their sol­diers.

What about get­ting a pris­on­er back without a trade?

In 1976, Is­raeli com­mandos went all the way to Uganda to re­lease [more than 100] Is­raeli pris­on­ers suc­cess­fully. But the com­mand­er of that op­er­a­tion, Yonatan Net­an­yahu, the broth­er of [Prime Min­is­ter] Ben­jamin Net­an­yahu, was killed in that op­er­a­tion. So the op­er­a­tions are very com­plex, they are not without steep risks, and the ter­ror­ists them­selves have be­come ex­tremely soph­ist­ic­ated. They can keep pris­on­ers in areas that are very dif­fi­cult to reach. They can keep ex­plos­ives around them. It’s be­come in­creas­ingly dif­fi­cult to mount spe­cial-forces op­er­a­tions to re­lease cap­tive sol­diers. Our en­emies un­der­stand the im­port­ance we at­tach to our fight­ing forces. And that gives them great­er lever­age.

Why is it worth it to bring back the sol­diers, even if it is just a body?

In 2012, of 5 mil­lion Is­rael­is, two-thirds of the pop­u­la­tion came un­der rock­et fire. And in or­der to be able to not only sur­vive but thrive in that en­vir­on­ment, you have to have a strong sense of na­tion­al re­si­li­ence. The fact that this coun­try takes in­to con­sid­er­a­tion the per­son­al feel­ings of fam­il­ies, in­clud­ing the fam­il­ies of fallen sol­diers, 

and it will do everything to re­trieve the re­mains of their loved ones, helps us with­stand pres­sures that would prove pun­ish­ing for many oth­er coun­tries. That’s our bot­tom line.

What We're Following See More »
ALL 100 SENATORS
Dem Senator Calls North Korea Briefing “Sobering”
34 minutes ago
THE DETAILS
SAYS CLINTON ADMINISTRATION BASICALLY GOT IT RIGHT
Pai Announces Plans to Roll Back Net Neutrality
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"Even as he acknowledged the importance of an open internet, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai on Wednesday set his telecom agency on a course to scrap the tough, broad net neutrality protections imposed by the Obama administration. During a major speech in Washington, D.C., Pai outlined the need for a total revision of existing federal rules that seek to prevent companies like AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon from blocking or slowing down web content, including the movie or music offerings from their competitors." Separately, Pai told Reason's Nick Gillespie that the Clinton Administration "basically got it right when it came to digital infrastructure. We were not living in a digital dystopia in the years leading up to 2015."

Source:
WILL ANGER CONSERVATIVES
White House to Continue Paying Obamacare Insurers
2 hours ago
BREAKING
LOFTY GOALS
White House Proposes New Tax Plan
2 hours ago
BREAKING

The White House on Wednesday laid out its plan for tax reform, with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin saying it would be "the biggest tax cut and the largest tax reform in the history of our country." The tax code would be broken down into just three tax brackets, with the highest personal income tax rate cut from 39.6 percent to 35 percent. The plan would also slash the tax rate on corporations and small businesses from 35 percent to 15 percent. "The White House plan is a set of principles with few details, but it’s designed to be the starting point of a major push to urge Congress to pass a comprehensive tax reform package this year," said National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn.

Source:
ORDERED BY PRESIDENT
DHS Launches Office for Victims of Crimes by Immigrants
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement today established the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE), as called for in a presidential executive order from January. The new office's website states that its staff "will be guided by a singular, straightforward mission—to ensure victims and their families have access to releasable information about a perpetrator and to offer assistance explaining the immigration removal process."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login