Tuesday, December 08, 2009

Free Gilad Shalit-Don't free Arab terrorists - Baruch Matir Asurim - From Nadia Matar


Another powerful email from Nadia Matar!  Baruch Ata Hashem Elokeinu Melech HaOlam Matir Asurim! This goes for Jonathan Pollard, Tzvia Sariel and to all those imprisoned like Yosef Hatzadik.  Hamokom Yerachem, Aleyhem, Veyotziem Metzara Lirvacha, UmeAfela LeOra, Meshibud Ligeula, Hashta Beagala UBizman Kariv!  

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Women in Green <wfit2@womeningreen.org>
Date: Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 2:59 AM
Subject: Free Gilad Shalit-Don't free Arab terrorists
To: wfit2@womeningreen.org

Instructions for unsubscribing can be found in the footer of this message.


Dear Friends,

Below please find two articles that relate to the upcoming Shalit deal. An article by Prof Louis Rene Beres and a release by Helen Freedman from AFSI.

Interestingly, the freezing decrees against the Jews in Judea and Samaria came exactly at a time when, in Israel, one should have a huge outcry against the upcoming release of a 1000 terrorists in exchange for Gilad Shalit.

Israel could have done and still can do many things to release Shalit without capitulating to Arab terror and without having to release terrorists:

1) Pressure on the Gaza Strip. Declaring that each day that goes by and Shalit is not released, Israel will cut off electricity, water and other supplies. For those who might be under the impression that Gazans are starving please take a look at the pictures in the following link. This provides pictures taken in Gaza very recently for Eid celebrations -- they were in an Palestinian Arab paper. Were you under the impression that the Gazans were starving (because of big bad Israel)? You'll change after seeing this:

2) Each day that goes by and Shalit is not released, Israel should arrest another Hamas and PA leader/activist who roam freely anywhere and everywhere.

3) Worsening the condition of Arab terrorists in prison. Few people know that Arab terrorists in Israeli jails enjoy hotel conditions. Their cells are equipped with TV, DVD, radio and sometimes even computers. They enjoy festive meals. Each Arab terrorist is allowed to study and many have completed B.A's and M.A's in jail. Most of them enjoy visitation rights of their families and even conjugal visits of their wives. All this should have been stopped from the day Shalit and other soldiers were kidnapped.

4) Last but not least, instead of sending its soldiers and elite units against the Jews in Judea and Samaria who might commit "the crime" of building, Israel has the capability of organizing a military operation to enter the Gaza Strip, destroy all terror organizations, free Shalit and finally reinstall Jewish sovereignty over this piece of our Land that foolishly has been given away five years ago to the Arab enemy.

We know that this last option is not what this government wants to do but we, the people loyal to the Land of Israel, must constantly remind ourselves and the world that we have not given up on going back to the Gaza Strip and rebuilding Gush Katif. Firstly because the Gaza Strip (known as "Eretz Grar" in the Bible) is as much part of the Land of Israel as Judea, Samaria, Galil, Negev and Golan. Secondly, because only when Israel is in full control of all areas, including Arab towns and villages, we can be sure there will be no Arab terror and kidnappings.

With love for Israel,

Nadia Matar
Women in Green

Trading Israeli Gilad Shalit for Palestinian Terrorists - An Illegal and Perilous Exchange
Louis René Beres - Dec 07, 2009
Purdue University

Under long-standing international law, every state has a primary obligation to protect its citizens. Yet, it appears that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may soon be prepared to exchange Palestinian terrorists for kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit. Any such exchange, however humane to Shalit and his family, would imperil thousands of other Israelis.

A core element of all civilized legal systems is the rule of Nullum crimen sine poena, "No crime without a punishment." This principle, drawn originally from the law of Ancient Israel and reaffirmed at the post-War Nuremberg Trials, is part of all international law. It applies here.

To the extent that U.S. President Barack Obama should concur in this impending deal - effectively, an American act of complicity with terrorists - our own country would be in violation not only of international law, but also the law of the United States. Such violation would be two-fold because all international law has been made part of US law (the "supreme law of the land") by Article 6 of the Constitution, and by a number of landmark Supreme Court decisions.

For Israel, there is also a pertinent and portentous history of terrorist exchanges. In June 2003, the Shurat HaDin, the Israel Law Center, in anticipation of then-planned terrorist releases, condemned Israel's freeing of 100 Palestinian prisoners. Later, almost five times that number were freed by then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. In her letter to the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet, Shurat HaDin, Director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, wrote that releasing terrorists for any reason would reignite Arab terrorism against defenseless Jewish men, women and especially children.

Nitsana was correct. Soon thereafter, at least two newly released Palestinian terrorists proceeded to launch suicide bomb attacks in Israel. In these attacks, one "military target" of the heroic fighters was a cafe filled with mothers and their babies.

Every state has an indisputable core obligation under international law to prosecute and punish terrorists. This obligation derives in part from "No crime without a punishment." It is codified directly in many authoritative sources, and is also deducible from the binding Nuremberg Principles (1950). According to Principle 1: "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment."

Terrorism is a serious crime under international law. The precise offenses that comprise this crime can be found at The European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. Some of the Palestinian terrorists previously released were also guilty of related crimes of war and crimes against humanity. These are Nuremberg-category crimes, so egregious that the perpetrators are known in law as Hostes humani generis, "Common enemies of humankind."

International law presumes solidarity between states in the fight against all crime, including terrorism. This presumption is mentioned as early as the seventeenth century in Hugo Grotius' The Law of War and Peace. Although Israel has a clear jurisdiction to punish any crimes committed on its own territory, it also has the right to act under broader principles of "universal jurisdiction." Its case for such universal jurisdiction, which derives from an expectation of interstate solidarity, is found at the four Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949. These Conventions impose upon the High Contracting Parties the obligation to punish "Grave Breaches."

No government now has the legal right to free terrorists in exchange for its own kidnapped citizens, military or civilian. Terrorism is a criminally sanctionable violation of international law that is not subject to manipulation by individual countries. In the United States, it is clear from the Constitution that the President's power to pardon does not encompass violations of international law. Rather, this power is always limited precisely to "Offenses against the United States."

In originally capturing and punishing Palestinian terrorists, Israel acted on behalf of all states. Moreover, because some of the terrorists had committed their crimes against other states, Israel cannot properly pardon these offenses against other sovereigns. Although Mr. Netanyahu's impending prisoner exchange would not, strictly speaking, represent a "pardon," it would have exactly the same effect.

No state possesses the authority to pardon violations of international law. No matter what might be permissible under its own Basic Law, any impending political freeing of terrorists by Israel would be impermissible. The fundamental principle is also established in law that, by virtue of such releases, the releasing state itself must assume responsibility for past criminal acts, and for future ones.

Under international law, Prime Minister Netanyahu's impending exchange - effectively analogous to a mass pardoning of criminals - would implicate the Jewish State for a "denial of justice." This could have practical consequences. Although it is arguable that punishment, which is central to justice, does not always deter future crimes, such an Israeli freeing of terrorists would undermine the Jewish State's legal obligation to incapacitate violent criminals from committing new acts of mass murder.

A tragic aspect of modern international law is sometimes the need to make hard and painful choices in order to safeguard larger populations from future harms. Mr. Netanyahu should now act accordingly.

LOUIS RENÉ BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), and is author of many books and articles dealing with international criminal law.

1751 Second Ave, New York, NY 10128
Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717;
afsi@rcn.com; http://www.afsi.org/

Contact: Helen Freedman, Executive Director

Dec. 7, 2009


(Based on a Bulletin put out by Palestinian Media Watch, Dec. 6, 2009)

Americans for a Safe Israel recognizes the extraordinary difficulty in coming to a decision regarding the release of Gilad Shalit in exchange for PA terrorists, many of whom have blood on their hands and are serving life sentences for murder.

It is our belief that the Israeli government might know where Gilad Shalit is being held prisoner and if so, should use its military might and expertise to rescue Shalit from his captors. Instead, it has put the Shalit family and the country through the torturous exercise that seems to be heading for the exchange of Shalit for 1,000 unrepentant terrorists. The record shows that released terrorists return to their pattern of murder and mayhem bringing death and suffering to innocent Israelis.

Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik quote from this month's Al Ayam. Hani Al-Masri, Dec. 1, asserts that "Israel understands only the language of force, since kidnapping is the only thing that leaves
open the gates of hope for freedom for prisoners with long prison terms. This encourages others towards self-sacrifice for the sake of the homeland" Abdallah Awad writes, Dec. 3, "Only, only-says the
Hebrew state - by force, detainment, capture, and kidnapping of occupation soldiers, is it possible to free Palestinian prisoners "whose hands are stained with blood"

Similar quotes have been heard throughout the debate on the prisoner exchange. Can Israel really open the gates wide on future kidnappings and attacks on Israeli citizens? We believe that especially at this
time of Chanukah and miracles and the bravery of Judas Maccabeus, the Israeli government must act to instill pride and strength in its people. It can only do this by "Just saying NO" to internal and
external pressures that would have Israel appease its enemies and weaken itself.

Women For Israel's Tomorrow  (Women in Green)
POB 7352, Jerusalem 91072, Israel
Tel: 972-2-624-9887 Fax: 972-2-624-5380

To subscribe to the Women in Green list,
please send a blank email message to:
Check your spam filter for confirmation to reply to

To unsubscribe from the Women in Green list,
please send a blank email message to:

Post a Comment