While the parents of the three kidnapped soldiers can only hope the government is negotiating seriously to speed up their release, MK Limor Livnat (Likud) has initiated a bill, supported by MK Benjamin Netanyahu, that would tie its hands in such negotiations.

The piece of legislation, which would require the agreement of 80 MKs for the pardon of prisoners who have committed murder in a nationalistic context, rides roughshod over the sensitive area of prisoner release. Harsh legislation has no place in an issue that requires a kid-glove touch, and could in the future sabotage any agreement for the release of prisoners, both in peace agreements and in cases where the release of Israeli soldiers and civilians is required.

The abduction of soldiers and civilians for purposes of negotiation is something done not only by Hezbollah and the Palestinians, but has also been a practice of Israeli governments throughout the country's history. It is to be assumed that as long as the conflict persists, use of this weapon will also persist.

	Advertisement

There are thousands of security prisoners in Israeli jails; some have been convicted by the civilian judicial system and some by the military system. Prisoners who have been convicted by civilian courts, such as Marwan Barghouti, have to undergo an ordinary pardoning process. Prisoners convicted in military court can be released through a decision by the military establishment.

Livnat's bill is directed at prisoners like Barghouti, as if the murders he was behind are any different from the acts of hundreds of other prisoners. It is to be assumed that precisely the promise of leadership that he portends is what is causing lawmakers on the right to fear his release. Those who do not have a peace treaty with the Palestinians at the forefront of their minds also cannot imagine Barghouti at the head of a future Palestinian state.

The institution of pardons is problematic by its nature because the criteria the Justice Ministry uses when it recommends a pardon are not always clear, and the president's reasons for signing the pardon are usually not made public.

The greatest possible transparency should be demanded in the process of pardons, in the spirit of the Freedom of Information Law. Consideration should be given to transferring responsibility for pardons to a body that would scrutinize the chances for a prisoner's rehabilitation, and that would remove any doubt that extraneous interests might stand behind the choices made.

Livnat's proposal misses the mark, and does not deal with the issue of pardons with the degree of seriousness it deserves. The transfer of the authority for pardons to 80 politicians, especially when it comes to murder in a nationalistic context, is populist in its character and its intentions. There is no connection whatsoever between this and justice. It is to be hoped that the bill will be rejected at the outset.