Look, what gaza is going through is horrible.  But my sympathy is tempered by the fact that the world demands that Israel 'negotiate fairly' and talk to a group that clearly wants to murder Jews.   (Yes, yes, I know they have a new charter that doesn't call for genocide anymore, but look up all the raised eyebrows when they changed it and said they couldn't get rid of the old Jew-murder-y one for reason-y reasons.   Also, note that they now say they're fighting Zionists in the charter - so you'd assume all Zionists, not just Jews, right?   Nope, every time they call to, say, tear the hearts out of someone, something one of the highest ups, forgot-his-first-name Sinwar actually literally said and it's out there on Twitter-land in video, it's always the Jews.  It's like they still want to, say, murder Jews, preferably all of them.)

 

 Let's delve deeper into this: how well did talking to the nazi regime work for the Jews?   And yeah, naively, they tried at first, or just wanted to keep their heads down.   Unsurprisingly, talking to someone who's whole raison d'être is murdering you, yes all of you, Jews hasn't worked in the past.   It's insulting that we're expected to see 'nuance' in hamas.   Like no amount of nuance and socialism or economic gains nuanced away the nazi's genocidal aims.   Let's not nuance away what hamas really wants: to murder the Jews, all the Jews.   Because no amount of nuance is going to pretty that up, you d-hole of an author. 

 

That's honestly my biggest gripe right now.   We don't talk about hamas with enough   nuance.   But I think this ties into a lot of what I was talking about earlier, and oddly enough it's only reinforced by everything I read, no matter on what side of the issue.   Can you imagine someone patting Muslims on the head and saying they just didn't deal with the Christchurch murderer - yeah, I don't know his name and never bothered to look it up because that time and energy could be better spent, which is why I keep forgetting Sinwar's first name - with enough nuance?   Nope, you couldn't, because no matter what he felt had been done to him, and his country, the really important thing about his was he was a cray-cray psycho who gunned down a shitload of people.   No amount of nuance is going to make that shitshow any better.   That being said, I do believe in understanding why he did it, because I think it can help understand and prevent further mass shootings. But, hey, Muslim community?   You don't have to talk about this asshat with nuance.   Call him out for the asshole he is.   But understand this: hamas is also genocidal and while some Jews want to be their friends - not a lie; this was a tweet from a Jew back from when they had their genocidal desires enshrined in their charter - many will call them out for the terrorist, extremists assholes they are. 

 

And guess what?   They've tried to murder waaaaay more Jews than the Christchurch shooter tried to murder Muslims.   We don't owe them shit, especially not a nuanced discussion of why they're trying to murder us.

The Negotiator by Gershon Baskin offers a behind the scenes look at the negotiations that brought Israel's soldier home from Hamas captivity.

On June 25, 2006, Palestinian terrorists made their way through a tunnel from the Gaza Strip and attacked an IDF post near the border. Two Israeli soldiers were killed and another two were wounded; two of the Palestinians were also killed. Gilad Shalit*, lightly injured in the attack, was dragged back into Gaza through the tunnel.

This scenario sounds eerily familiar, after the recent attempts by Hamas terrorists to penetrate into Israel and strike at army posts and kibbutzim, actions which led to the loss of several Israeli lives. During Operation Protective Edge, it was believed Hamas was striving to achieve a "quality" attack, in which they could kidnap Israeli soldiers for use as future bargaining chips.

When Gilad was captured, Dr. Gershon Baskin, founder of an Israeli-Palestinian think tank and veteran of peace process talks, immediately launched informal talks with Hamas officials. In particular, Baskin communicated with Ghazi Hamad - initially the spokesperson for the Hamas government and its prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh. With Israel and Hamas refusing to openly negotiate with each other, the two believed that they could help compose the principles that would lead to a prisoner exchange between the sides.

The success of this secret back channel, Baskin explains, was due to "the trust that had developed between Ghazi Hamad and myself, based on hundreds of hours of communications focused on the prisoner exchange."

The Negotiator (The Toby Press, November 2013) relates the story of the informal communications between Baskin and his Palestinian counterpart, as well as with others involved in efforts to bring Gilad Shalit home. Lacking an official appointment and the ability to deal with Hamad on a face to face basis, Baskin's efforts are detailed as an account of "emails, text messages, faxes, and notes during five years of continuous activity."

Bring Gilad Shalit home

Gilad's captivity touched an entire nation. With an encampment of family members and supporters outside the prime minister's Jerusalem residence, and yellow ribbons tied to car antennas, there was "no doubt that the hearts and minds of every Israeli family were with the Shalits."

The framework of the deal that would even eventually bring Gilad home was already known a few months after his capture. "Why Gilad Shalit had to spend nearly five more years in captivity, not to mention the 1,027 Palestinian prisoners who got their freedom in exchange, is a troublesome question that only Hamas and the Israeli leadership can answer in full," Baskin states.

Baskin blames both Israel and Hamas for the stalemate that delayed the exchange, but it seems that most of the blame falls on Israel's leaders. "Israel's government ministers and security officials continued telling the public and the Shalit family that they were leaving no stone unturned to bring Gilad home. As I heard their statements, all I could think was: lies, lies, lies."

Yet, Baskin was pleasantly surprised by Prime Minister Netanyahu's willingness to cross his predecessor's 'red lines' and make the deal, one that was acceptable for Israel's security as judged at the time.

"Very few people know of your role and contribution to advancing the deal," Netanyahu wrote Baskin, in a short note after Gilad's release. "In the name of the government of Israel, and in my name, I thank you for the time and effort you devoted to this important cause."

Baskin's tale, as described in the text messages and emails included in The Negotiator, is one "full of hope and intrigue, of passionate dedication to a mission, and of the naïve, wildly optimistic belief that one citizen can make a difference."

Gershon Baskin, Ph.D., is the Israeli Co-Director and founder of the Israel/Palestine Center for Research and Information (IPCRI) - a joint Israeli-Palestinian public policy think and “do”-tank located in Jerusalem. He is currently the Co-Chairman of IPCRI's Board of Directors. Previously he served as an advisor on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Baskin is a member of the steering committee of the Palestinian-Israeli Peace NGO Forum as well as a member of the Israeli Council for Peace and Security.

*Shalit is the common spelling of Gilad's last name. The spelling used throughout The Negotiator is Schalit.

Buy The Negotiator and read it now!

I wasn't optimistic about reading a true story when the young man says on page 10 that the Arabs lost because they were outgunned and outnumbered in the First Arab-Israeli War in 1948. But on the next page he begins to talk about the psychology of Islamic extremism and redeems his story a bit. The book is an easy read and, if the events related are reasonably accurate, he has an interesting story. He whitewashes much of the Palestinian terror actions and paints Israelis in a bad light in most situations. Yet he becomes a spy for the Shin Bet and provides intelligence for several years on the actions of Hamas high level operatives. A conversion from Islam to Christianity certainly makes his eventual path clear, he has to leave. 2.5 Stars

Insightful, ironic and Inspiring. Mosab's story lends greater understanding of the conflict in the middle east and how the conflict around and within him led to his conversion into Christianity.