The High Court of Justice's decision to reject the appeal filed by bereaved families against the release of murderous terrorists was expected. The judges did face a new type of question though, as until now Israel had only freed terrorists in exchange for hostages, living or dead, while this time Israel was doing so merely as a diplomatic gesture. But it appears that only ashes remain of the tough criteria proposed by the Shamgar Committee regarding the release of terrorists. However, the appeal of the bereaved families to the High Court of Justice was not in vain. With three more rounds of releases ahead of us during the duration of the talks, Judge Elyakim Rubinstein left a glimmer of hope that the process could be thwarted. Rubinstein questioned whether the government's pledge to the Palestinian Authority (a foreign entity) to release Israeli Arab terrorists was valid. What will remain of Israeli sovereignty if the Palestinians can dictate to the government that Israeli citizens be released from jail before completing their sentences- This issue has been discussed before in this newspaper and other public forums during previous terrorist releases, as well as the current one. There is a fundamental negation of sovereignty when Israel accedes to a demand of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud to release a terrorist from Nazareth, which lies inside the Green Line. Let's look at precedent. Only after Jonathan Pollard obtained Israeli citizenship did Israel's effort to secure his release (which still hasn't succeeded) become legitimate. Going back further, Egyptian Jews who committed espionage and sabotage on behalf of Israel in the "Lavon Affair" in 1950s were arrested and tried by Egypt. Two were executed in 1955. After Operation Kadesh in 1956, when Israel returned 5,000 Egyptian captives in exchange for one pilot, no one dared to demand the release of Egyptian Jews imprisoned for their roles in the "Lavon Affair." It was clear they were Egyptian citizens and that Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser would not agree to discuss their fates with Israel. If Abbas can dictate the release of murderers, then couldn't a crime family do the same by taking hostages in the heart of Tel Aviv? In this imaginary scenario, the crime family could threaten to kill hostages if one of its imprisoned members was not released and sent abroad to an unknown country. Would the government accept the dictate of the crime family or would it endanger the lives of the hostages by trying to capture or kill the hostage-takers- The answer is obvious. What is not clear, however, is why the government is not applying that now. There shouldn't be talks with a foreign entity about the release of criminals who are Israeli citizens. Also, tangentially, Israel's willingness to talk with Abbas about the release of Israeli Arab terrorists undermines the concept of "two states for two peoples."
