I would like to add something here that fascinates me. Shalit was returned as an Israeli hero. In his uniform, with Netanyahu, Barak, and every trapping of the state. But this is an outcome, obviously not his “natural” state. For a very long time, even while negotiations were taking place, it was far from clear whether the state will turn him into the symbol. Although there were fertile grounds in the Israeli imaginary landscape for his trasubstantiation from a relatively geeky-looking youngster into a symbol, it wasn’t automatic. Indeed, the work of symbolization was carried out, at times almost single-handedly, by his family. The political fight with the state, replete with demonstrations, processions, and appeals, was long, grueling, and highly uncertain. It is not long ago that the negotiations seemed impossible, and Shalit’s fate quite dim.

It is this aspect, that, for me, is most interesting. Without making him into a war-hero he was made into the focus of public ritual that united most of the Israeli population. If somebody would truly follow this story as a tale of a public representation, I expect we will learn a lot not only about Israeli and Palestinian politics, but about the politics of symbols.

Having said that, I feel the need to make some comments. One is that you write: “Palestinians accused in terrorist action.” Some of those Palestinians were not only “accused” – they freely admit and pride themselves on attacking, killing and hurting civilians. The reason I mention this is not only in order to make a CHESHBON (“Invoice”?) with some of the media and the squelching of the vile nature of some of the brutal attacks of some of the Palestinians, but to point out that there are many people in Israel who are appalled by this exchange. Were they willing to “sacrifice” Shalit? Probably so. However, since this was prevented (and I for one am absolutely delighted that it was prevented), one can hear loud voices requesting that Israel uses the death sentence for some Palestinians whose acts can be considered as equivalents to “war crime” or even to use the battlefield to kill specific Palestinians so that no demands can be made in the future for their release. While I hope that these two terrible options will not be pursued, there is a relevant something else that I feel the need to say. If we are to follow Gilad’s, and ours, hope for peace a “Morpheus syndrome” – that is squelching and repressing relevant information – should not be pursued. Good and ugly deeds, toxic pasts, on both sides need not be forgotten. If we are to pursue peace in a way that will not antagonize in a negative and angry fashion sections in the populations, both sides need to know what the real alternative to peace is – a continuation of a nasty, ugly and despicable conflict. Making real concessions for peace does not only mean geographical and demographical wheelings and dealings. It also means knowing and understanding the nasty acts that have been carried out in this conflict. Forgiveness will be nice, but no one needs to forgive if they do not feel like it. The minimum required is the ability and willingness to recognize and remember the past, the WHOLE past, and thus to be able to go along, live together knowing that the shadow of this past needs to loom over our heads if we want real peace. It is this shadow that will remind us – continuously – what the alternative to peace is.

I do want to end my comment by expressing, again, my gratitude and admiration to Irit’s heart-touching and sophisticated response. Thank you!

Nachman