Earlier in this thread, I noted my disappointment that Israel did not tie the ceasefire and/or troop withdrawal to Hamas' release of Cpl. Shalit. Israel had an opportunity to use its on-the-ground successes to gain greater leverage in bringing an end to the hostage situation. It passed on that opportunity, even as added leverage could only be helpful.
Now, with the ceasefire in place and Israel's troops having withdrawn from the Gaza Strip, such leverage as might have existed to help bring an end to the hostage situation has evaporated. Not surprisingly, today's edition of
The Jerusalem Post reported that there has been no progress with respect to Israel's efforts to secure Cpl. Shalit's release. Furthermore, it noted that some in Jerusalem are looking to expand Israel's concessions toward that end.
Relevant excerpts follow:
Nevertheless, following Gilad's [Amos Gilad, who heads the Defense Ministry's diplomatic-military bureau]
talks in Cairo, Army Radio quoted a Ramallah source as saying that there was no progress on the Schalit issue, and, Abu Mujahid, a spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, one of the groups behind Schalit's abduction, said that demands for the captive's release were unchanged.
Meanwhile, a Jerusalem official told Reuters that Israel should show more flexibly in a deal for the captured soldier and should even release Palestinian inmates responsible for large-scale terror attacks. According the official, Hamas had been severely weakened in the IDF's Operation Cast Lead and therefore, a prisoner swap wouldn't significantly strengthen the group.
My guess remains that in the absence of sufficient leverage, Hamas and the other terrorist entities responsible for the hostage situation are not likely to free Cpl. Shalit. They likely view the situation as an invaluable symbol of "victory" and are not keen to bring an end to the situation. Should Israel offer fresh concessions--and the type of prisoners being discussed by some would create a security hazard--the terrorist entities will more than likely choose to wait to see what new concessions might be offered afterward. In the absence of sufficient leverage, only hugely disproportionate concessions would lead the terrorist organizations to free their hostage.
Finally, the continuing stalemate in the hostage situation and loss of Israeli leverage from what I believe is a premature ceasefire, not to mention rapid withdrawal of the IDF, could play a role in bringing about a change in Israel's government. Should Israelis conclude that the ceasefire fell short of meeting Israel's needs (as opposed to the more limited objectives set forth at the start of Cast Lead) and progress on the hostage situation remain non-existent, they could opt for what they would hope would be a tougher government headed by Likud's Binyamin Netanyahu. Already, some polls give the Likud a small edge over Kadima.