The Goldin family slammed Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman after his call not to appoint a new Coordinator of the Prisoners of War and Missing in Action following Lior Lotan’s resignation. “The Defense Minister is good at talking, but weak in action. The Prime Minister must keep his promises and appoint a replacement immediately,” the family stated.
Hadar Goldin’s parents during the press conference Photo Credit: Channel 2 News
Simha and Leah Goldin, the parents of the late IDF soldier Hadar, whose body has been held in the Gaza Strip by Hamas since Operation Protective Edge, responded today (Sunday) to Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s remarks, according to which the conclusions of the Shamgar committee should be fully adopted. The two called Lieberman “a weak coward, the kind that is good at talking, but weak in action,” and called upon Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to immediately appoint a new Coordinator of the Prisoners of War (POW) and Missing in Action (MIA) following Lior Lotan’s resignation.
“The media has become our only means of communication with the Defense Minister and the Prime Minister,” stated the couple during a press conference they arranged. “To place pressure on Hamas or at least to open negotiations for prisoner exchanges is a two-sided equation,” Simha added calling upon politicians from all parties not “to turn Hadar into a price.”
As reported earlier by JOL, Lieberman said in a statement that he understands Leah Goldin’s criticism from Friday, but Israel “must not repeat the mistakes made in the [Gilad] Shalit prisoner exchange.”
“As part of the deal, we released 1,027 terrorists, among them murderers and their handlers including Mahmoud Qawasmeh, who was expelled to Gaza and funded the kidnapping of the three teenage boys, and Yahya Sinwar, who leads Hamas in Gaza,” Lieberman said. The Israeli minister added: “I continue to be personally committed to the return of Hadar and Oron to Israel and [the return of] our citizens who are being held in the Gaza Strip contrary to international law.”