The criticism that followed Noam Shalit's announcement that he would be entering politics is hypocritical and unfair. Every citizen has the right to influence and contribute in the political arena and the argument that being Gilad Shalit's father strips Noam Shalit of that right is strange. True, the battle to secure his sons freedom has situated Noam Shalit at the heart of public debate for five years, and that kind of popularity is a convenient starting point for a fledgling politician, but there's nothing wrong with that. The other side of the same coin is that this man was uniformly supported, even by those who opposed a prisoner swap, and now he is risking losing his undisputed support to become a controversial figure, whom many in the public disagree with. It is precisely because I view Shalit's decision to enter politics as completely legitimate that I propose that we assess his candidacy as we would any other politicians: What will he bring to our political system? What values? What political vision? Since Shalit has yet to voice any specific political views, and since he was catapulted into politics by his efforts to secure the release of his son from Hamas captivity, the only message he represents is the message carried by the prisoner exchange that brought Gilad home. (Israel released more than 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Gilad Shalit's freedom.) Like most opponents of the prisoner swap, I too felt sympathy for the Shalit family and their legitimate battle for the life of their son. However, we must now examine Noam Shalit's struggle from a national-political standpoint, not a personal-sympathetic perspective. First and foremost, the prisoner swap sends a message of privatization. Privatization of society and privatization of our nationality. It's a message of erasing the "we" and putting the "me" above all else. And since the "we" comprises many individuals, it is actually a message of putting a specific "me" above other individuals whose names are not in the headlines, but could very well pay with their lives for Gilad Shalit's freedom. The message of securing the freedom of a captive soldier "at any cost" is a message that disbands our society: Every soldier goes to battle knowing that he could lose his life or be hurt or captured, and he is willing to take the risk because he knows that our collective national existence depends on it. The Shalit prisoner exchange also sent out a message of weakness in a region eager to see the "Zionist entity" destroyed. This weakness undermines peace and promotes violence. The enemy understands that captive soldiers represent Israel's soft underbelly, and will now concentrate efforts on capturing Israelis. There is no rational reason to believe that Israel will be able to foil 100 percent of these efforts. It is more likely, actually, that the motivation to kidnap Israelis, and the price demanded for their freedom, will soar. The release of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in the Shalit deal will almost certainly increase terror, because many terrorists were released and are now free to resume their terrorist activity and also because potential terrorists can now rest assured that even if they are apprehended, they will likely be released in the next prisoner swap. Noam Shalit deserves our respect for the muted and democratic way in which he operated and for the composure he displayed. He represents an admirable principle of nonviolence. But the considerations behind his struggle are misguided, and ultimately harm the very cause he was fighting for. Israel's "at any cost" attitude bolstered our enemies and weakened Israel's bargaining power, placing further obstacles in the path of peace. If these are the values that Noam Shalit will bring to Israeli politics, they are wrong.
Get the Israel Hayom newsletter sent to your mailbox!
