Shalit Agreement Shows Moral Failure of International Human Rights Frameworks

October 12, 2011

(NGO Monitor) JERUSALEM – While welcoming the agreement to release kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit as an important humanitarian act, Professor Gerald M. Steinberg, president of human rights watchdog NGO Monitor, noted that this episode further exposes the moral bankruptcy of international human rights mechanisms.
“Throughout the five years of Shalit’s captivity in Gaza, during which every human rights obligation was blatantly violated, organizations such as the UN Human Rights Council, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network (EMHRN), Gisha, and the International Red Cross demonstrated very little interest,” Steinberg stated. “Similarly, the report of the UN Fact-Finding Commission on the Gaza War, headed by Judge Richard Goldstone, downplayed Shalit’s captivity in blatant violation of international law. This moral stain will never be erased.”
In addition, NGO Monitor noted that the agreement to release hundreds of terrorists, responsible for heinous crimes, and tried and convicted according to due process of law, highlights the continued erosion of international legal principles. Instead of serving their time for these convictions, the murderers have been freed under extreme duress and compulsion, adding to the incentives for similar actions in the future. Organizations dedicated to human rights have an obligation to condemn such immoral extortion.

Gilad Shalit. It was worth it! 1000 terrorists that Israelis humanely have to pay for versus one hostage that the NGO community was ignoring and was abused is completely worth it. further it allows the Israelis to now shoot those they had to care for before. There is no loss here. Had Bibi waited a month there would of been no Egypt as we know it to negotiate with. It is a hard pill to swallow, but think of the outrageous torture Gilad would of endured that Amnesty International and the Red Cross would of ignored. it’s another example of how comparing the numbers is irrelevant. If we were to compare numbers there would be no Israel at all. We can only compare numbers when we make the assumption that the enemy captives are treated like Israeli captives. This would be a prime example of denying the correlative.