The yields of terror

1027 to 1.

Those are the terms of the deal between the Israeli government and Hamas, a bloodthirsty terrorist organization, the charter of which calls for the destruction of Israel and the murder of every last Jew.

Hamas has agreed to return their Gilad Shalit, an Israeli sergeant who was captured in a deadly terrorist attack in 2006. In return, Israel has agreed to release 1,027 prisoners, many of whom have committed acts of indescribable horror. Promised justice for the killers of their loved ones, Israeli families are only now discovering that woman who groomed and chauffeured suicide bombers to playgrounds – the man who blew up a synagogue with their loved ones inside – the internet seductress who slits young boys’ throats for jihad – these people and many, many more just like them are going to be released to celebration and fanfare.

Never again let it be said that Israel does not care for human life. For one man – one – they are willing to defile the memory of their myriad slaughtered countrymen and risk the safety of every last living Israeli by releasing one thousand of the most dangerous fiends on earth to kill again.

This is a fanatical devotion to life at any – and potentially the ultimate – cost. The differences between Israel and Hamas could not be greater: one side grooms suicide bombers and rejoices in a cult of death – the bigger the body count, the greater the glory, with extra points for pregnant women – while the other will do the unthinkable to save one of their own.

Except it’s not unthinkable, not to the terrorists who have learned that crime does, indeed, pay.

Israel has a history of one-sided swaps, even going as far as to release convicted murderers in exchange for the bodies of Israeli dead, “information” regarding hostages, and (in Shalit’s case) 20 female prisoners simply for a video of him alive. There is every reason to believe that Israel’s history of negotiating with terrorists is only increasing the premium on the head of every one of its citizens.

So here we are: celebrations for released murderers (“heroes”), renewed grief and disbelief for the families of the slain as they watch the killers walk free, the increased confidence among would-be terrorists that Israel’s harshest punishment lasts only until the hostage is taken.

We’ve reached that ubiquitous moment in the movies where the villain mocks the hero’s naïve devotion to saving lives. “It will be your undoing!” he gleefully cackles, as the hero, seeing a hostage, slowly lays down his weapon.

Everyone knows what happens next – the hero buys time, comes up with a plan, and the villain is defeated in a dramatic scene.

But this is real life, where the villain simply smiles and shoots you both.

 

 

 


Credit Where It’s Due

After the IRA’s failed attempt to assassinate British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher via a deadly bombing at the Brighton Hotel, they warned Britain that they would not quit. In what would become the mantra of terrorists for decades to come, the IRA gloated in defeat: “…Today we were unlucky, but remember we only have to


Shouting “Fire”

Few people in history have been misquoted as frequently – and egregiously – as Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. Here is his most famous line: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.” This single statement, regarding “acceptable” limitations on free speech,


Deep Thoughts

“It is the progressive project to aggrandize government by humanizing it. Government becomes the life that cares and feels and exhibits concern. The real lives, the human lives, become cogs in the wheel . . .” -Andrew McCarthy


Freedom, Dhimminished

I hate covering the Middle East. It’s a terrible beat for a variety of reasons: societies suffering under totalitarian theocracies, unimaginable violence and disregard for human life, the inevitable slaughter of moderate figures, genocidal blood-feuds and few happy endings. Indeed, we don’t bring up the region unless there is an issue of paramount importance. The


Terror and tolerance

A nobody in Gainesville threatens to burn the Koran. The outcry is damning. Politicians fall over themselves to create distance. Countless government officials – including the President himself – speak out strongly against the action. Top officials take time out of their schedules to beg him to call it off, which he does, for a


Do as I say, not as I…say.

”The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” – Barack Obama, Boston Globe, December 20, 2007 “I have written an extensive legal memorandum with the help of a group of legal scholars


Once more unto the breach

“Things are going to change around here.” Updated content, essential perspectives, stimulating discussion and a new editor to tie it all together. That would be me – Daniel Lee. We haven’t always been there for commentary – oil rigs have burst, tsunamis have hit, terrorists have attacked, foreign countries have rioted, and our president and


Musing On Losing

David Axelrod, the senior advisor to President Obama, energetically attacked the Republican “Pledge to America” – no surprise there. Axelrod equated the programs facing potential cuts to defense programs and took a hawkish stance in favor of spending. Not one to mince words, Axelrod leveled his criticisms quite plainly, stating that “this isn’t a prescription


DOJ Hypocrisy

President Obama has been a longtime opponent of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by President Clinton. This explains the why the gay community felt bitterly betrayed when the Obama administration came to DOMA’s defense in court. Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler explained the reasoning behind such a decision. While arguing that