Mr. Chairman: If only Mashaal were like Fayad

Recently, two central issues have stood at the forefront of the public debate. The first is the "small" exchange made with Hizbullah and the second is the renewed negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

Theoretically, there is no direct connection between the two. Actually, the negotiations with Hizbullah are closely related to the Palestinian issue.

Firstly, Nasrallah makes the release of numerous Palestinian prisoners a condition for receiving information on Israel's captured soldiers. Secondly, Hizbullah's main demand is that Israel release Samir Kuntar who murdered members of the Haran family in Nahariya in 1979. He has since turned into a chilling symbol of the inhumane brutality and cruelty of Palestinian terror.

Recently, I met with the Palestinian leadership in Jerusalem. This meeting, the initiative of Knesset Chairman Dalia Itzik, presented the unique opportunity for me to meet Salaam Fayad, considered by many in the US, Europe and Israel as the "biggest Palestinian hope".

After a couple of hours in Mr. Fayad's presence, my impression was of an honest man, who means what he says and who does not see the option of engagement and dialogue with Israel as solely a tactical maneuver.

I left the meeting with a deep feeling of sadness. My frustration was caused by the "missed opportunities"; for the past 11 years, since the Oslo Accords and until Arafat's death, Palestinian society has not produced a leader whose condemnation of terrorism has been so authentic. So much bloodshed could have been prevented - Israeli blood and Palestinian blood - had the Palestinian leadership succeeded in adopting the realistic approach that characterizes Salaam Fayad.

His approach is not only reserved for meetings with Israeli and Arab MKs. I have read his remarks in media outlets and I was impressed with the poignancy and clarity of his arguments. In an interview with CNN in which he flung stinging criticism at the policy of 'resistance', the code-name for violent terrorism, he asks: "Is our situation better than it was? Our situation is catastrophic...'Resistance'? It completely decimated our national aspirations!"

Fayad takes courageous stances even in the Arab and Palestinian media. For example, in a featured interview in ASharq Alawsat, he protested that the downward spiral caused by the 'resistance' has led thousands of Palestinian to emigrate and many others don't leave only because they do not have the means to. He concludes: "Therefore, we are losing. The occupation has for decades been unsuccessful in uprooting the Palestinian from the land. Unfortunately, it is the anarchy, the loss of control and security, and the bloodshed that has led to that."

Such profound utterances against the armed struggle with Israel deserve some appreciation, especially as the official Palestinian ethos has been the waging of a 'holy war' (jihad) against the infidels and the promise of eternal pleasures to the shahid  (martyr). We all remember Arafat - after signing the Oslo Accords, after sporting the medallion he received as Nobel Prize winner - who ceaselessly glorified, at every opportunity, the "millions of shahids marching towards Jerusalem".

How do we link all of this to the deal made with Hizbullah? It seems that there is no disagreement on the fact that many Israeli governments committed grave errors in that time and time again, they have set free dangerous murderers as part of a deal with terror organizations. The fact that dozens of Israelis have been killed in terror operations planned or carried out by the same people released as part of the "Jibril deal", "Tanenbaum deal" and others, certainly leaves no room for disagreement.

Therefore, we mustn't answer Hizbullah's or Hamas's demands for the release of countless brutal murderers, with the blood of thousands of Israelis on their hands. An acquiescence to these demands is a death sentence to hundreds of Israeli citizens.

In addition, if Hassan Nasrallah and Khaled Mashaal, through violence and kidnappings, succeed in freeing their prisoners, who needs Salaam Fayad? Who needs Mahmoud Abbas? This could only be a grave mistake security-wise but also a foolish political misstep that would destroy the relevance of the Palestinian leadership.

In any case, a hundred years of incitement has already intensified in Palestinian society the suspicion and doubt felt towards the idea of accepting the existence of the Jewish State. If the extortion employed by Hizbullah and Hamas succeeds once again in bringing Israel to her knees, it will send a message to the average Palestinian that the moderate and pragmatic ways of Fayad and Abbas are not as effective as the ways of the radical camp.

Therefore, we must look positively at the truth behind the recent "small" exchange with Hizbullah. Israel was balanced, operated with level-headedness and did not pay an exorbitant price for the body of the Israeli citizen who drifted to Lebanon's shores. This is exactly how the government must conduct any future negotiations, with regards to the captured soldiers Schalit, Regev, Goldwasser, and with regards to the upcoming Annapolis meeting: cautiously and responsibly while keeping in mind the commitment to ensuring Israel's many interests.