A Lopsided Trade or Good Diplomacy?

A recent deal between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah arranged for the swap of five Lebanese prisoners for the corpses of two Israeli soldiers captured in 2006 at the Lebanon-Israel border by Hezbollah.  The two Israeli soldiers were capture, upon order by Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nassrallah, to be used as bargaining chips to free Lebanese from jail — the move apparently worked.

The Israelies, today, buried the remains of the two soldiers returned:  Sfc. Ehud Goldwasser and Ssg. Eldad Regev.  The exchange is important for Israel.  The Jewish population in Israel places great significance on the “Jewish family.”  The return of the soldiers, even if they are not alive, is of great religious and symbolic significance to Israel’s Jews.

One of the Lebanese prisoners released was Samir Kuntar.  Samir was 16-years-old when he was arrested by Israeli authorities for the killing of an Israeli police officer, a woman, and a child.  He is now 46-years-old, and a Lebanese national celebrity.  The release of Samir, and the other four prisoners, is seen as a political triumph for Hezbollah in Lebanon; the Lebanese held a homecoming celebration for the five prisoners with a banner in the background that read “God’s Achievement through our Hands.”

The victories for Hezbollah continue.  Less than a week following the deal, Hezbollah reached another milestone.  They gained veto power over government decisions in the Lebanese government by increasing their representation in the cabinet.  Moreover, the entire government of Lebanon — Parliament and Prime Minister — backed Hezbollah’s negotiation efforts with Israel.  Interestingly enough, in Lebanon, Hezbollah carries more political influence than the formal government in Beirut does.  Samir, the prisoner described above, is a Druze — one of the most influential religious sects in Lebanon; his release only adds to the credibility of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The primary reason given by Israel for negotiating with Hezbollah was that a prisoner exchange would remove some of the issues that Hezbollah uses to justify keeping weapons — namely, the retention of Lebanese prisoners.  The Israeli government also acknowledges that fact that the ability to negotiate with Lebanon means dealing with Hezbollah — directly, if need be.  Shortly after the release, Sheik Nassarah vowed his support for a negotiated settlement of disputed territory between Israel and Lebanon; a gesture seen by many as a sign of good faith.

At first glance, this deal seems extremely lopsided — five “live” prisoners for two dead ones, what kind of deal is that? I must admit, when I first read about the negotiation I frowned a bit; the trade seemed ridiculous.  However, after I looked into the event a bit I began to understand the diplomatic motive.  Israel has recognized two things:

1. They cannot “defeat” or “destroy” Hezbollah or the broader grassroots intifada-style movement.  The 1982 and 2006 invasions of Lebanon has forced Israel to reassess their foreign policy.  Israel cannot base its relations with its Arab Muslim neighbors according to a right-wing-hawk, Likud policy.  The only way to bring issues to settlement is by negotiation
2. Hezbollah is undergoing a social and political transformation — they are a recognized and powerful bloc in the Lebanese government.  If Israel wants to pursue peace and reconciliation with its neighbors, it will require them to engage with groups like Hezbollah.

The deal, if nothing else, is symbolically important, in that it formally recognizes diplomatic ties between two contentious factions.  It also indicates that Israel no longer views Hezbollah as a nonnegotiable and illegitimate non-state actor.  These two factors will hopefully mend ill relations between the two groups, help to rein in hostilities, and set the platform for further political reconciliation and negotiation.

Furthermore, Israel has a unique opportunity to redefine the way in which nation-states deal with militant (state and non-state) actors.  Hezbollah is considered by America as a terrorist organization, thus precluding any chance at real political negotiation.  For once in a long while, I am agreeing with Israeli foreign policy.  What’s next?  Negotiations with Iran? — ha, right.