That is total balls. Someone who bludgens a 4 year old girl to death should remain in prison. Hezbollah aren't slaves to Israel and hence aren't 'learning' anything. Your justification of this is frankly baffling.
Let me say this about the prisoner Qantar. He was jailed in 1979, aged 17, for killing a four-year-old Israeli girl and two other people. Aged 16 at the time of the murder(s), he has always denied killing the girl and her father, but never denied killing the other person.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/middle_east/7510686.stm
He was in prison for 29 years, and mostly held in an open prison , where he gained a degree from the Jerusalem Open University. He received a pardon from President Peres (but not forgiveness).
At the time of his imprisonment, Lebanon was in civil war, and Israel were constantly invading, on and off.
Murderers are freed in UK every day after serving their sentences, however, this was not a normal murder. Let me place some context to 1979 relations between Israel and Lebanon.
Long before Hezb were formed, in June 1979, UN notes how Israel was not respecting the territorial integrity, unity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within internationally recognised boundaries.
Calls upon Israel to cease forthwith it's acts against the territorial integrity, unity, sovereignty, and political independence of Lebanon, in particular, it's incursions into Lebanon and the assistance it continues to lend to irresponsible armed groups"
(450, June 1979:
http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/370/64/IMG/NR037064.pdf)
I heard people say that Israel got nothing from handing over the live prisoners. They are of course being naive. Strategically, they get world-wide press and a sympathy now divorced from the terrible events of 1970's.
Israeli raids over Lebanon were sometimes, but not always, in response to PLO operations. At the time, Haim Herzog was worried that the repeated Israeli Air Force raids could drive Lebanese government into providing an air-defence of Lebanese territory, perhaps even relying on Syria for military assistance due to Lebanon's lack of air-defences. On the other hand, the repeated incursions by Palestinian resistance in Lebanon. Mmany Palestinians refugees were pushed here in 48-51, some 30 years earlier from whence some organised a militant response to their disposession (PLO). However, many more were pushed into Lebanon only 12 years earlier after the occupation of East Jerusalem through the absence of the new Israeli-issued permit to reside.
The attacks by militant Palestinians needed a response, but Herzog believed the military response would backfire. Rabin, had also decried military response, favouring political response as the only means to put an end to the terrorism vistited upon the Israeli populace by radicalised militant Palestinian refugees.
At this time - 1979 - military/'civilian' illegal settlements in the Golan were only some 12 years old, and following Israeli incursions against Palestinians in the West Bank/Gaza and Lebanon, these illegal northern settlements were targeted in response. So - a militant Palestinian plants a bomb in Carmel market, in Tel Aviv (April) and it goes off, killing six children of between 6 and 10 years old, bringing the number of Israeli children killed that year to 17. I have no idea how many Palestinian children had been killed by Israel in 1979, because the news never reported Palestinians as human beings back then, let alone count their deaths, but lets say around 4 times that many. Back in 1979, no-one ever talked about why Palestinian militants were fighting Israel. No-one really talked of refugee camps - they talked of camps as though they were military encampments.
I suggest everyone look into the conditions of 1979 and especially those that arose out of 1967 - 12 years prior to 1979.
1967 is when occupation of East Jerusalem/ West Bank began, and these areas were annexed.
1967 Families permanently separated and Palestinians subject to military rule said:
In June 1967, following the 1967 War, Israel annexed some 70 sq. km to the municipal boundaries of West Jerusalem, and imposed Israeli law there. These annexed territories included not only the part of Jerusalem that had been under Jordanian rule, but also an additional 64 square kilometers, most of which had belonged to 28 villages in the West Bank, and part of which belonged to the municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Jala. Following their annexation, the area of West Jerusalem tripled, and Jerusalem became the largest city in Israel.
Prior to 1967, therefore, most of the area comprising present-day Jerusalem was not part of the city (West or East), but rather part of the West Bank. The new borders, set by a committee headed by General Rehavam Ze'evi, then assistant to the head of the Operations Branch of the Israel Defense Forces' General Staff, were approved by Israel's government.
In setting the borders, the committee's objective was to strengthen Israeli sovereignty over the city by creating a Jewish majority. Thus, demographic considerations were decisive, and planning considerations were only of secondary importance. In order to ensure a significant Jewish majority, the primary consideration was to prevent the inclusion of heavily-populated Palestinian areas within Jerusalem. Whereas several Palestinian villages were placed outside the city, some of their lands were included within the city's new borders, examples being Beit Iksa and Beit Hanina in the north, and detached areas lying in the municipalities of Bethlehem and Beit Sahur in the south. Villages and neighborhoods were, therefore, divided; one part remained in the West Bank, and the other part was annexed by Israel.
After the annexation, Israel conducted a census in these areas and granted permanent residency status to residents in the annexed areas present at the time the census was taken. Persons not present in the city for whatever reason forever lost their right to reside in Jerusalem. Permanent residents were permitted, if they wished and met certain conditions, to receive Israeli citizenship. These conditions included swearing allegiance to the State, proving that they are not citizens of any other country, and showing some knowledge of Hebrew. For political reasons, most of the residents did not request Israeli citizenship. Setting the municipal boundary to run through neighborhoods and villages also created a distinction between Palestinians regarding their rights, since residents living in the unannexed area continued to be residents of the West Bank, and were subject to military rule.
Palestinians hold the status of "permanent resident" of the State of Israel. This is the same status granted to foreign citizens who have freely chosen to come to Israel and want to live there. Israel treats Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem as immigrants who live in their homes at the beneficence of the authorities and not by right. The authorities maintain this policy although these Palestinians were born in Jerusalem, lived in the city, and have no other home. Treating these Palestinians as foreigners who entered Israel is astonishing, since it was Israel that entered East Jerusalem in 1967.
Permanent residency differs substantially from citizenship. The primary right granted to permanent residents is to live and work in Israel without the necessity of special permits. Permanent residents are also entitled to social benefits provided by the National Insurance Institute and to health insurance. Permanent residents have the right to vote in local elections, but not in elections to Knesset [Parliament]. Unlike citizenship, permanent residency is only passed on to the holder's children where the holder meets certain conditions. A permanent resident with a non-resident spouse must submit, on behalf of the spouse, a request for family unification. Only citizens are granted the right to return to Israel at any time.
Suggest anyone interested in this conflict and it's resolution in our time goes and reads up on it's history.
In 1967, the first
civilian Palestinian response to Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem was not violent. On August 7th 1967, Jerusalem Arabs organised a General Strike to resist Israel by shutting all shops, restaurants and shops. No incidents of violence were reported. I don't know what was happening for those Arabs who were away on business/studying/visting relatives when East Jerusalem was annexed, but they would have lost their residential status/business/ability to rejoin family.
Don't forget to look into the activities of Fatah militants at this time.
Try to take a step back from today's 'religious war' rhetoric, especially in considering that people living in the areas annexed by Israel in 1967 were of mixed religion and ethnicity.