Exiled Hamas leader says Palestinians should seize more soldiers

[barb162]

Exiled Hamas leader says Palestinians should seize more soldiers

By Avi Issacharof, Amos Harel and Zvi Bar'el, Haaretz Correspondents

A Hamas official close to the group's exiled leader said Tuesday that the Palestinians should try to capture more Israel Defense Forces soldiers, criticizing Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas for helping Israel search for a soldier seized by militants.

Further complicating matters as IDF troops and armor massed on the Gaza border, another Hamas official from the exiled leadership said the soldier was considered a "prisoner of war" and it would be hard for Israel to win his release without making concessions.

Corporal Gilad Shalit, 19, was seized Sunday by militants who infiltrated Israel's border by a tunnel. The militants' demanded the release of detained Palestinian women and children in return for information about Shalit.


Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has rejected the demands and ordered the military to prepare for combat.
snip
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/731574.html

[Tom Joad]

1. I wonder how many Palestinian children Israel seized today?

In the first quarter of 2006 alone, some 350 children were arrested -- compared to around 700 child arrests in the whole of 2005. The vast increase in arrests is in turn leading to overcrowding in prisons as record numbers of juveniles are being held in unsuitable and unhygienic conditions.

At any given time there are probably hundreds of Palestinian children in detention, with some 350 in detention at the beginning of 2003. In 2002 one-fifth were between 13-14, the rest between 15-17. The military and police tend to target children between 12-17, but have arrested children as young as nine.

Children are arrested "at checkpoints, on the street, or at their homes by heavily armed Israeli soldiers in the middle of the night. The soldiers take them to detention centres in Israeli settlements or military camps... the children are interrogated. This almost always involves some form of torture or abuse, including sleep and food deprivation, threatening language, beatings with heavy batons, being punched and kicked, as well as being tied in painful and contorted positions for long periods of time..."

[barb162]

2. none, unless they are armed

btw, link?

[Violet_Crumble]

3. And where's the link for yr claim?

Any claim that Israel only arrests children who are armed needs some evidence accompanying it...

[Tom Joad]

6. Link? Israel only arresting children armed with weapons?

That link is in the imagination. Wishful thinking.

Like thinking that the US only kills "terrorists" in Iraq, or Bush only spies on terrorists, or that the US never tortures anyone. Same kind of nationalist imagination, not connected to reality. Except the WorldNetDaily or Fox News variety. I can't really blame people for really wanting to believe, however.

There is this old movie with Jack Lemmon, "Missing". The lemmon charecter is a father of a u.s. journalist who goes missing in post-coup Chile. He is a regular businessman, who believes in the basic goodness of his government. Never would he believe that a) his government would collude with a brutal military dictatorship like Pinochet. b) that they would in any way do anything but help him find his son.

Searching in Pinochet's Chile he finds the truth is otherwise. He, at least, is open to truth. Very painful. Very tragic.

[barb162]

9. I believe you are misstating Joad's comment which contained

the word "today."
http://www1.idf.il/dover/site/homepage.asp?clr=1&sl=EN&id=-8888&force=1

I don't see any children arrested today

Do you have any evidence there were children arrested today in the news?
And I wonder why you want to see a link for my comment but not Joad's.

Now if you want to discuss why Palestinian kids get arrested maybe you'd like to review some of the articles below which delve into the disgusting, sick exploitation of Palestinian children by Palestinians.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1446003.stm
The Islamic Jihad is running a summer school - to teach boys the benefits of becoming suicide bombers.

A new generation of children, Palestinian boys aged between 12 and 15 years old, is growing up amid conflict and violence.
snip

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3898895.stm
Boy bomber speaks about mission
A Palestinian boy arrested with a bomb strapped to his chest wanted to become a suicide bomber to avenge the death of a friend - and be relieved of school.
Hussam Abdo, who was 15 at the time, told the BBC that his parents would not have allowed him to leave the house if they knew what he was going to do.
He was stopped by Israeli soldiers at a checkpoint in the West Bank.
They forced him to cut off his belt, which contained nearly 9kg of explosives and nails.
Video footage of his arrest was shown around the world. snip


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3515710.stm


http://www.theprismgroup.org/articles/palestinian_children_what_are_they_being_taught.html#Appendix%20A%20–%20Examples%20of%20Incitement%20in%20Palestinian%20TextbooksAppendix A – Examples of Incitement in Palestinian Textbooks

"There is no alternative to destroying Jerusalem,"<54>
"The return of the Jews to Palestine and permitting them to establish a Jewish state contradicts history."<55>
"The book is dedicated to . . . ‘those who are battling for the expulsion of the enemy from our land!"<56>
" . . . There will be a Jihad and our country shall be freed. This is our story with the thieving conquerors. You must know, my boy, that Palestine is your grave responsibility."<57>
"Remember: The final and inevitable result will be the victory of the Muslims over the Jews."<58>
"Exercise: Distinguish between verb and noun clauses: ‘The land is our land and Jerusalem is ours."<59>
"The honorable soul has two objectives: Achieving death and honor."<60>
"The Martyr rejoices in the paradise that Allah has prepared for him . . ."<61>
"The Jews claim that this is one of the places belonging to them and call it ‘The Western Wall,’ but this is not so."<62>
"Racism: Mankind has suffered from this evil both in ancient as well as in modern times, for, indeed, Satan has, in the eyes of many people, made their evil actions appear beautiful . . .Such a people are the Jews."<63>
"Lessons to be learned: One must beware of the Jews, for they are treacherous and disloyal."<64>
"Subject for Composition: How are we going to liberate our stolen land? Make use of the following ideas: Arab unity, genuine faith in Allah, most modern weapons and ammunition, using oil and other precious natural resources as weapons in the battle for liberation,"<65>
". . Martyred Jihad fighters are the most honored people, after the Prophets. ."<66>
"The clearest examples of racist belief and racial discrimination in the world are Nazism (sic) and Zionism"<67>



http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part3.html

various videos such as

PA Child: "Daddy bought me a machine gun and a rifle"
Promoting violence and terror among children through video clips and other children's programming has long been a prominent component of Palestinian Authority Television. This week a young girl was asked to recite a poem on PA TV. The poem is the recounting of a present received from daddy; "a machine gun and rifle."




Kill all the Jews - Words of Palestinian Teenager on TV
In clear proof that the many years of constant hate education in Palestinian media and schools has produced a generation steeped in love of violence, PA TV aired the frenzied shouts of a teenage in which she asks the countries of the world to supply Palestinian children so they can kill all the Jews - "We won't leave a single Jew here."



Child Soldiers of the PA
In a shocking program, PA TV lionized three young boys who had purposefully sought Shahada, or Death for Allah. A poster labelling them heroes of the great Islam is shown and their suicidal action dubbed their badge of honor. The mother of one of the boys - aged between 15 and 17 - is shown saying that she was grieved - not that one of her boys died as a shahid, but only that the specific boy died. She would much rather one of her other sons have died. Such is the level of death worship on PA TV.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1955672.stm

Last Tuesday night, three 14-year-old Palestinian schoolboys from the Gaza strip armed themselves with knives and crude homemade explosives and headed towards the Israeli settlement of Nezarim.

Their aim was to break through the heavily guarded security fencing of the settlement, but they did not even get close. snip

( Where do you suppose the kids in the photo in the last story got those rifles, Violet?)

[Violet_Crumble]

12. No, I'm questioning a claim YOU made

You claimed no Palestinian children were arrested today unless they were armed. It's a very safe bet that you have no idea what arrests were carried out today, and past history proves yr implication that children are only arrested if they're armed to be wrong.

[barb162]

15. Since you don't know or can't prove I am incorrect, unless

you have some info or link to back it up, I wonder where you're going here. Do you have some link showing any "kids" were arrested today, Violet? I think Israel has its hands full with other things today, don't you?

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Seeing you won't back up yr claim..

...it's safe to assume you weren't making a statement based on fact. Which is what I suspected when I first asked you :)

[barb162]

29. I backed it up in post 3. See any stories on "kids" getting arrested

today, Violet? If so, where are the links? And you haven't backed anything up or proved me incorrect.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. No you didn't...

Yr claim that Israel only arrests children who are armed is one of those absolutist claims that sheer common-sense should tell most people why it's wrong. Israel arrests unarmed Palestinian children on a regular basis, as there's no policy that restricts arrests to only minors who are armed.

For some more information on arrest and detaining of Palestinian minors, here's some links you really should read:

"Since 29 September 2000, Israeli authorities have arrested some 2,650 Palestinianchildren. Since 2002, hundreds of children have been arbitrarily detained, and then later released without charge, during the mass round-ups of Palestinian males that Israel hasc arried out. As of 10 July 2004, 324 Palestinian children were held in Israeli prisons and detention centers. Of these, 10 were girls and approximately 30 were boys held under administrative detention."

http://www.dci-pal.org/english/doc/reports/2004/sep28.pdf

"Soldiers frequently fired recklessly towards unarmed Palestinians, ill-treated, humiliated and arbitrarily detained Palestinian men, women and children, and confiscated or damaged vehicles."

http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/isr-summary-eng

[barb162]

79. So, did you see any reports of kids arrested that day?

link?

[Tom Joad]

5. Yes, usually the children have two arms, two eyes (filled with tears)

but as far as weapons, they are almost never armed.

Now there is a difference if a rock is in the hands of a Jewish settler child, they are never questioned, much less arrested, nor are their parents even questioned. Instead, they get US taxpayer- subsidized housing.

Watch the following. Despite the fact that this was all done in full view of an Israeli soldier, whose legally required to protect Palestinian civilians (though of course, that is almost never adhered to).

The following happened in Hebron.

http://www.theopticnerve.com/palestine/stonedagain15June2006.mov

[barb162]

10. see post 9, they certainly are armed; suicide belts, rocks, guns

etc.

[Scurrilous]

4. Mass arrests, detention and torture or ill-treatment of Palestinians

<snip>

"The IDF arrested thousands of Palestinians, including hundreds of minors, throughout the Occupied Territories. Most were released without charge and many without having been questioned. Ill-treatment was widespread during arrest and interrogation, and there were numerous reports of torture in detention. Detainees reported various forms of torture and ill-treatment, including beatings, being handcuffed and tied in uncomfortable positions for prolonged periods, threats to the detainee and their relatives, and sleep deprivation. At least one detainee died in custody after he was beaten.

More than 1,900 of those arrested were held in administrative detention for up to one year. They were not charged with any offence and were held on the basis of “secret evidence”, which neither they nor their lawyers were allowed to see or to challenge in court. Around 1,000 other people who were arrested were charged with involvement in attacks against Israelis and more than 3,800 were tried by military courts in trials that fell short of international fair trial standards.

Most Palestinian detainees were not allowed to receive visits from their relatives, even when, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross, the relatives fulfilled the necessary security requirements."

http://web.amnesty.org/report2003/Isr-summary-eng

[Behind the Aegis]

8. Is that the topic of the OP?

I thought we were supposed to discuss the issue at hand and not "pet" issues.

[barb162]

11. Nope. Maybe some people want to change the subject

because it doesn't make for a very good propaganda tool that some Palestinian leaders are openly calling for more crimes... like kidnappings.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. There's nothing wrong with capturing troops...

They're legitimate targets, barb. Or are you claiming otherwise?

[barb162]

18. If there's nothing wrong with capturing troops and it's so legit

and all, why do you think there's so many people from other countries and also Palestinians, trying to get this soldier back?
http://english.people.com.cn/200606/28/eng20060628_277895.html

Palestinian Fatah movement led by President Mahmoud Abbason on Tuesday called on the abductors of an Israeli soldier in Gaza to free him.

Fatah spokesman Jamal Nazzal made the call while speaking to reporters that the abductors must release the Israeli soldier in compliance with earlier similar calls by the Hamas-led government and President Abbas.

"Kidnapping the Israeli soldiers is a failing trade because it would endanger innocent people," Nazzal told the reporters.
snip


And I assume you agree it's okay for Israel to go into Gaza and get their soldier back.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Because they're generally consistent..

..in that human rights groups and other govts also try to help captured Palestinians. That does not in any way mean that the capture of this soldier was an act of terrorism, as some in this forum are trying with a complete lack of logic and consistency to claim...

[Scorpio2000]

22. POW

You're right, it was an act of war.

Do you believe the captive will be treated according to the Geneva Convention?

[Violet_Crumble]

51. There are no POW's in the I/P conflict...

So I doubt the captive will be treated as one. "Israel" doesn't treat Palestinian combatants it captures as POW's either. I believe both sides should. Do you? Or do you think only the Palestinians should?

[barb162]

23. Kidnapping is a crime in civilized societies.

And an act of terrorism in this case

[The Magistrate]

28. Capturing A Soldier At War, Ma'am, Is Not A Crime

Nor is proposing to exchange him for other prisoners.

Threatening to kill him if no exchange is agreed to is a crime, and actually killing him while in custody, would of course certainly be a crime.

[barb162]

31. It's not "declared " war

edit for quote marks

[The Magistrate]

32. But It Is A War, Ma'am, As A Practical Matter Of Fact

Otherwise we would all be singing happy songs, between bouts of comparing the virtues of schwarma and gefilte fish....

[barb162]

34. bwaha!

I know, I know....
(or ludefisk)

It's been a sort of seething or low-grade undeclared war that's heating up fast

[daveskilt]

78. If it is a war - there is no problem with israel leveling gaza

[Englander]

47. 'Kidnapping is a crime in civilized societies.'

See also;

'Israeli troops in hospital raid

Israeli troops have raided a hospital in the West Bank city of Nablus, and arrested an injured Palestinian militant said to be seriously ill.


Last Updated: Friday, 2 June 2006, 12:23 GMT 13:23 UK

Reports said the man had been shot in the stomach during clashes with Israeli forces in the area earlier this week.

The hospital director said the operation to seize the man had violated all principles of humanitarian ethics.

Israeli military officials said he was a member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

They said the man, Jawad al-Kaabi, had been transferred to a hospital in Israel.

Mr Kaabi was said to have been in a serious condition when he was taken from the church-run Saint Luke Hospital.

More at;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5040806.stm





And an act of terrorism in this case

Says who?

[Violet_Crumble]

55. And that's only one of several instances...

There's also the raid on the Jericho prison...

'Kidnapping is a crime in civilized societies' indeed ;)

[eyl]

49. Depends

To have the right to take action against a soldier, it's not enough that the target is a combatant - the person taking the action also needs to be a combatant. Are you maintaining that Hamas' "miltants" are legitimate combatants?

Bear in mind that if that's the case, than military strikes against them - including assassinations - are perfectly legal, at least in principle.

[Violet_Crumble]

52. So how was that Palestinian in a Palestinian prison a combatant?

Because yr argument would apply to that situation as well, wouldn't it?

And, yes, I have always maintained that militants are combatants in this conflict....

Added for clarity the link to the Israeli raid on a Jericho prison http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=119035

[eyl]

57. As I recall

he's being tried - which a POW isn't. Your point would be better if Israel killed him, which it didn't.

In any event, I've long maintained - here and elsewhere - that the current definitions of the laws of war, which split everyone into either a legitimate combatant or a civilian, are inadequate for the purpose of modern warfare against terrorism - and the case you cited is a prime example why that is.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. But he was a prisoner and not a combatant...

So how is kidnapping him from a Palestinian prison in any way legitimate?

If you were to be able to do a bit of a revamp of the rules of war, what would yr changes be? And would they be changes that are fair ones? eg not a bunch of changes that make Palestinians legitimate targets and in the case of Israel exclude everyone from being considered a combatant?

[eyl]

59. Why are you assuming

that prisoner and combatant and mutually exclusive terms? Especially as, by all reports, their incarceration was more in the line of protective custody than punishment, and they were actually directing activity from within prison (see also what I write later about Article 5).

As for changes in the laws of war, that is a bit difficult. Allow me first to outline what problems I think need solving.

The Geneva Conventions generally split everyone into two groups. On the one hand you have combatants, as defined in GC3 Article 4*:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:< (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.[br />
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

On the other hand, you have protected persons, as defined by GC4 Article 4, which basically includes everyone in the power of one of the Parties who is not covered by another of the GC and who belongs to a signatory state which is not neutral in the conflict.

The problem arises when people who fall under "protected person" status commit acts of war. On the face of it, this is handled by GC4 Article 5, which allows the occupying power to suspend the rights of a specific protected person under certain conditions:

Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In addition, a protected person, in return to his immunity from attack, lacks the legal immunity a combatant has for acts of war. That is, a soldier who shoots another soldier** is within the law; a protected person who shoots a soldier (except for direct self defense and one or two other special circumstances) can be tried for murder.

Under these rules, the situation breaks down as follows:

1) The IDF is composed of combatants
2) The Palestinian groups are protected persons, since they do not wear distinctive insignia and often are not "commanded by someone responsible for his subordinates", and often do not bear arms openly. As such, they have civilian immunity, but can be arrested and tried. Their rights as protected persons can be suspended if they are inside Israel.

The requirement that combatant bear arms openly and wear uniforms seems to be a major detriment to guerrilla groups. Protocol Additional I loosens this restriction, by allowing combatants not to wear uniforms so long as they bear arms openly when attacking or preparing to attack within the sight of the enemy (Article 43). It has often been interpreted that under other circumstances, the combatant in question enjoys the rights of a protected person. This addition seems to me to be extremely dangerous, because it hampers the other side's ability to distinguish combatants from civilians (remember that civilian immunity is a two-way street - military forces can give civilians immunity because they're assured the latter will not attack them).

As I see it, the major problem is with individuals who would, under the GC, be considered to be protected persons, who nevertheless take action (directly or indirectly) against military or civilian targets who are in occupied territory (where Article 5 allows much less leeway), in particular in territory where the nominally occupying power cannot use police powers against them (either due to enemy control of the territory, reasons of terrain, etc.) Unless "caught in the act", such persons have virtual immunity - as do HQs, supply caches, and so forth.

Taking a stab at solving it, I suppose I would write the laws something like this:
1) Members of regular armed forces, as well as irregular forces as defined in GC3 Article 4, are legal combatants and have all the rights thereof.
2) Nevertheless, irregulars who do not comply with those requirements may still claim status as legal combatants, so long as they fulfill the requirements of having a command structure limit their assaults to military targets as per the laws of war. Such irregulars are forbidden from involving protected persons in their activities to any greater extent than regular forces may. They are deemed to be combatants even at times they are not openly bearing arms.
3) Irregulars who do not fulfill these requirements but take action which threatens the security of the occupying State may, if the security of the State absolutely requires, have their noncombatant immunity suspended (in effect, this basically extends Article 5 to occupied territory).
4) An irregular force may slip from category 2 to category 3 if it violates the laws of war in an egregious fashion. To preserve their rights as combatants, it is the responsibility of the irregulars to distance themselves from the violators, either by expelling them or clearly splitting off, or otherwise making a distinct division from them.
5) The HQs, supply caches, and other command & support facilities and personnel*** of irregulars under #2 or #3 are also deemed valid military facilities with the same status.

This still seems to give regular forces an advantage, but I don't see a way around that without compromising the principle of noncombatant immunity or giving common criminals the opportunity to claim POW status****.

*There are two other categories which I omitted since they're irrelevant.
**Assuming there aren't special circumstances, such as when one of them is a prisoner of the other
***This is still giving me some trouble; I'm trying to think of a way to distinguish between military control and civilian control
****Though the results may be amusing. There was a Law & Order episode where a gang of robbers (who had killed a guard while robbing a Lottery truck) tried to claim POW status since the were "at war with the government of the US". I was a bit disappointed that the ADA's response wasn't "sure, no problem; let me just talk to the US Attorney (or whoever is the relevant personage) and set up a war crimes tribunal in a military court".

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Here's why...

A prisoner is not a combatant. They're not armed and already being in custody, cannot try to escape when combatants target them.Mind you, there was a hell of a lot of hypocrisy on Israel's part when it came to this kidnapping as Israelis who assassinate Palestinian political figures (or threatening to assassinate them, as Sharon did constantly) are lauded as heroes and imprisonment for any sort of crime isn't even a consideration....

Yr rewrite of the law is imo a reasonably fair one and I can't see anything I'd disagree with there....

[Recursion]

80. I thought capturing uniformed soldiers is "war", not "crime"

Now, if they torture / kill / etc. the soldiers after capturing them, that *is* a crime. But capturing (or killing them when they haven't surrendered) is war, not crime.

Or has that changed?

[Behind the Aegis]

41. Well, we know that the Palestinian militants have already taken one...

...Israeli child, and perhaps another.

[pelsar]

7. the usual attempt at the "equalization"....

an israels soldier has now been kidnapped and if history is any example will most likely be killed

and that is now being compared to the Palestinian kids being arrested and have no real fear of not coming home alive...got it

so if i understand correctly the posters here in fact see killing a wounded person as equal to that of detention...strange set of values on this site.

[barb162]

13. Yes, some have extremely strange values and will do anything

to change the very unpleasant subjectof the OP. As an aside, this also reminds me of the Israeli school bus that was bombed... a school bus with Israeli kids that was SPECIFICALLY targetted for killing Israeli kids by the Palestinians.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. What's so unpleasant about the OP?

And why would an attack on civilians remind you of a call to capture more Israeli troops?

[Scorpio2000]

17. So much for that theory

You know how things go. "palestinian" operations are not limited to Israeli troops.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/731937.html

[Violet_Crumble]

21. "Israeli" troops are legitimate targets..

"Israeli" civilians aren't. Clear enough?

[barb162]

24. Israeli troops in ISRAEL aren't legitimate targets

Clear enough?

[Tom Joad]

37. Then Palestinian fighters driving down the street, surrounded by

civilians, arent't legitimate targets. Clear enough?

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Clear as mud, barb...

The fact is that combatants on both sides of a conflict ARE legitimate targets, regardless of whether they're in the Occupied Territories or in Israel. And in this case they were on the Israeli border with Gaza. So, seeing you think Israeli troops on the Israeli border aren't legitimate targets, why is it that you believe that Palestinians in Palestinian territory are targets?

btw, I'm finding yr stance on what is and isn't a legitimate target to be rather selective. While in this case the target was unarguably a military one, in the past you've claimed that schools and homes in Gaza are legitimate military targets for Israel. Here's an example on the Israeli bombing of a school in Gaza:

"A building used only as a school is a civilian target. A building used by terrorists...well now, that's a different story and doesn't seem like a civilian target to me.

The Israelis were targetting a legit terrorist target. Sounds okay to me. By the way, I suspect that is not a violation of international law."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=101464#101502

[Scorpio2000]

26. Sounds right, but...

Sounds good on the surface. But, some of the "palestinian" factions see all Israelis as "troops"

[barb162]

27. That's a very good and correct point

[The Magistrate]

30. But The Man In Question, Sir, Is a Uniformed Soldier

And so long as hostilities continue, uniformed soldiers are legitimate targets. The policy of seeking to kill or capture Israeli soldiers may or may not be wise, but it is not criminal.

[Poll_Blind]

35. Agreed. On a mild tangent, do you have any thoughts on...

...the legitimacy (and when I use that word I mean under the general rules of war) of targeting IDF reservists or militant Hamas members without their military garb? I notice you specified "uniformed soldier" and I think we agree, at least in some basic generalized way, that a "active-duty" (aka presumably "uniformed") soldier is fair game (for lack of a more sensitive word) during conflicts such as this. I realize this is complicated further by the reality that, especially the militant or breakaway factions of Hamas (read as "The Real IRA" versus "The IRA" if you're familiar with that distinction) often have no uniform at all or do not wear uniforms or insignia during military/terrorist operations. I'm looking for a your general opinion, one which you would apply not just to this particular conflict but to all conflicts.

Bonus question (even more tangential), and this is something I've vacillated back and forth about for years, though not frequently or being at ease with or fully-accepting of either: Tim McVeigh's attack on the Federal building in Oklahoma: Is it more classifiable as an act of terror or a military action against the Federal Government. Military, in this sense is taken from the first meaning in the Merriam-Webster dictionary for the word military: 1 a : of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war.

PB

[The Magistrate]

36. Uniform Is A Convenient Short-Hand, Sir, For Active Combatant

A Hamas militant is a combatant, as surely as any soldier, just as a police detective in plain-clothes remains an officer of the law.

The line that a reservist not on active duty is a combatant is at odds with the Geneva definitions of a combatant.

Your second point is interesting. "Act of terror" has never seemed a useful formulation to me. McVeigh engaged in act of armed rebellion: armed rebellion is illegal and criminal until and unless it succeeds in overthrowing the government assailed....

"If we win, we're the loyal army. If we lose, we're the rebel army."

[Behind the Aegis]

39. Question for you Sir...

Do you see a difference in what this group did and what Israel does? Israel does not hide the prisoners away, nor do they take one for the sole purpose of "trade." Nor do they take civilians for bargaining chips and then threaten to kill them if their demands are not met. They arrest those who are suspected of crimes against Israel.

Now, we both know sometimes Israel arrests people in haste and we know that not every Palestinian currently behind bars is guilty, especially since they haven't had a trial; however, why is Israel expected to act to a different standard than its 'supposed' "partner for peace talks?" The whole "the Palestinians don't have a real army" just doesn't cut it.

Your thoughts? (That is if my thoughts made any sense. :))

[The Magistrate]

43. To My View, sir

The differences that there are more practical than otherwise. The capabilities of the sides are different, and so their techniqies will necessarily vary.

There is nothing untoward about about capturing a soldier in order to exchange him for prisoners of your own. Exchange of prisoners has long been a part of war. Some arrangements Israel has made in the past have established a pretty high rate of exchange, making it a particularly atractive tactic foir the militants.

As you acknowledge, there is a degree of injustice in Israeli arrest and oncarceration practicesi. Not everyone held is guilty, and given the condition of trial, not even everyone convicted can be surely said to be guilty. Cases in Israel's own courts have made clear the treatment of suspects is often very brutal.

The fact is that both parties are involved in guerrilla war, and these are always attended by brutal and ruthless behavior on both sides, even where both sides might be attempting to fight as cleanly as possible in such a conflict.

[Lithos]

46. If you don't mind me taking a semi-academic approach here

Do I see a difference? Of course, there is a difference, but it's really the same conflict. It's the result of asymmetric warfare at a textbook level which implies the metrics for governing success are also going to be asymmetric. Capturing the soldier makes this a purely military confrontation. If Israel ends up killing civilians as a result, then this will be perceived as a weakness and a victory for the Palestinian militant group which has the soldier. If Israel does nothing, then they are perceived as weak, if they fail they will be perceived as ineffective. Israel's only real options are a troop exchange or to find a military solution which shows they are not weak and somehow effective in dealing with the militants. The PR campaign has included many photos of Israeli tank groups forming en mass off the border.

Side Note: What I see happening is Israel is attempting to draw out the militants somehow and engage those who take the bait. That is why they've only entered into the sparsely populated areas east of Rafah. If that fails, then Israel will have to make the hard choice of entering into the townships in force or waiting. One option at that point would be to send in light special ops forces in what amounts to recon in force operations. Who knows, maybe they will get lucky and receive some intelligence about the matter which will help.




L-

[Violet_Crumble]

56. The only realistic option for Israel is...

..a prisoner exchange. I'm hoping the media images of Israeli tanks massing off the border is merely for PR purposes and that extreme measures such as large-scale incursions into heavily populated areas, which will lead to the deaths of civilians is not something that may become a reality....

[Behind the Aegis]

61. Not at all realistic

A prisoner exchange would only incite more abductions. Hell, they didn't even wait to see if that would be possible and now a second Israeli citizen has been abducted. Israeli citizens are nothing to these people (Palestinian terrorists). This kidnapping was a calculated move by the terrorists to garner more of the "poor Palestinian" plight, while misdirecting the world as to their involvement!

I might have viewed this whole situation a little differently had the abduction of the solider had taken place in the still occupied West Bank, but it did not. They illegally entered Israel killed two and took another. Where is the international outrage at that crime?

[cali]

62. Israel has exchanged prisoners

for captured Israels in the not too distant past- a couple of years ago, I believe, was the last time this was done. It's a damn shame they couldn't see to do it this time. It would have avoided bloodshed and misery.

[eyl]

63. That just encourages more of the same

we're up to possibly three kidnap victims now.

[Violet_Crumble]

72. It doesn't seem to have done so in the past...

It's never been a commonly used tactic in this conflict, and in the case of the hitch-hiker, I read that he was shot pretty soon after being kidnapped, so holding him as part of a possible prisoner exchange doesn't look like it was a driving motivation. I see no other realistic solution other than an exchange of prisoners. Doing what Israel is now doing isn't a realistic solution, and in fact is probably bound to result in the soldier being killed, as well as continuing to escalate to the point where civilians are going to die as well. The best chance of getting the soldier returned alive is to do a prisoner exchange, and an exchange of women and children imprisoned by Israel is what the militants and leaders of Hamas want. Olmert should reconsider rejecting it....

[Behind the Aegis]

73. it's been a set-up!

Israel got played! They fell into the hands of the terrorists fucks that so many here wish to pretend as so helpless!

Sunday, June 25th, the terrorists break into Israel and kill 2, and kidnap one. At the same time, an Israeli civilian is kidnapped. The goal? The first group wants prisoners released. The second group? They are holding the teen to prevent Israel from rolling into Gaza. Of course, unbeknownst to Israel, the teen is already dead!

This is nothing but coordinated terrorism!

You are right, Ms. Crumble, "...so holding him as part of a possible prisoner exchange doesn't look like it was a driving motivation." it wasn't. That young man was a "chip" to prevent Israel from trying to take back their solider who was taken from Israel! Their goal was to get the Israelis to release prisoners, in exchange for a soldier and a dead teenager!

[eyl]

75. It hasn't been commonly used

because it's not that easy to pull off if the target is being careful. But there have been a lot of declarations, both openly by Palestinian groups as well as security warnings, of intent and attempts to kidnap Israelis, particularly soldiers (note that besides this week's events, there was an attempt to kidnap to Israeli girls a week or two ago).

[Violet_Crumble]

76. At this point I think that's a risk that should be taken...

A prisoner exchange is the only solution I can think of that has the best chance of the soldier being returned alive and without Palestinian civilians being killed....

I've got a question about being careful, and I'll stick a disclaimer before I ask even though I'm sure one or two folk will promptly ignore it: There's clearly no justification for the kidnapping of hitch-hikers. My question is about hitch-hiking. I remember a while back there was an attack on a group of hitch-hikers in the West Bank, and hitch-hikers are incredibly vunherable. So why do people still hitch-hike in the West Bank? It's dangerous at the best of times anywhere, but in occupied territory it'd be even more so. When I used to drive to Sydney years ago I used to see the backpackers trying to hitch a ride on the Hume Highway on the outskirts of Sydney, but since a serial killer murdered seven backpackers who hitched rides with him, there's been very few backpackers around Casula. The media attention generated overseas (most of the victims were foreign tourists) got the word out that hitch-hiking here was dicing with death, so I'd be hoping there'll be a similar effect in Israel...

[eyl]

77. But a prisoner exchange

will just encourage more kidnapping later on.

As to your question, beats me. Youthful overconfidence* is my guess

*AKA the "it'll never happen to me" syndrome

[Behind the Aegis]

65. It still isn't a good policy.

They did do a swap, with Lebanon in 2004. That swap included one person and three bodies. So you tell me, why would a swap be in Israel's best interest? This is what the last one looked like:

"Dirani is one of hundreds of Arab prisoners to be released for an Israeli businessman and the bodies of three Israeli soldiers — all kidnapped by Hezbollah in October 2000.

The prisoners to be freed by Israel include 400 Palestinians, 34 people from Arab countries and a German convicted of spying for Hezbollah." source

This is an act of war by the PA Government of Gaza!

[Tom Joad]

60. Israel could make a gestrue. Israel could release a few hundred

Palestinian children in detention.
would that put the State of Israel at risk? I don't think so.

After the brutal killing of a family on the beach of Gaza in the last week, it would seem the very least they would do.

This may result in the release of the detained soldier.

Releasing some Palestinian detainees is an act could de-escalate the tension (which may not be what Israel wants to do, and all signs are that they are working to increase tensions and escalate the conflict, as anyone who has been paying attention in the last few weeks would see).

I do think it would be in the best interest of Israelis and Palestinians to do so.

Sadly, it is not in the interest of the powers-that-be in the Israeli government.

Therefore, we can expect massive loss of Palestinian life in the next week, along with massive damage to an already crumbling infrastructure. The one-sided war Gaza has been through has been nothing less than a crime against humanity.

In Ten days in May of 2004, ONE Thousand, One hundred homes were destroyed, meaning tens of thousands of Palestinians had to seek other homes, many of these people were already refugees. TEN DAYS of Work of the Israeli occupiers. I shudder to think what the next ten days will bring.

[Behind the Aegis]

66. I doubt they'd even take the children.

They want their terrorists cohorts. But, I think it would be very wise for Israel to make that type of swap. Swap the children in detention who were not active combatants for the solider. It would be interesting to see how that would work out.

[Tom Joad]

68. I expect it to end with Israel killing many children.

[Scorpio2000]

69. You know the drill

You can also expect the brave "freedom fighters" to surround themselves with children.

[cali]

70. Of course

Palestinians would never kill young Israelis. If Settlers or the Israeli government kidnapped, murdered and mutilated a young Palestinian, cries of condemnation would rightly be reverberating throughout this forum. There are two threads on the death of this Israeli kid, but there's a paucity of remarks condemning this murder from the very people who so rightly condemn Settler or Israeli government abuses.

Sad.

[Violet_Crumble]

74. Where did Tom imply that Palestinians would never kill young Israelis?

He didn't. He's made his views clear in earlier threads that there are no excuses for attacks on children, unlike some regulars here, who are very blatant with their attempts to justify the killing of children when Israel does it. Also, when young Israelis are killed in this conflict, the loudest condemnation comes from some of the very same people who either say nothing or attempt to justify it when young Palestinians are the victims. This tendency isn't confined to one 'team' or the other in this forum, and it's gone on as long as I've been here. Part of it is due to what I suspect is a fear that if those killed on the other 'side' (whether they be Israeli or Palestinian) are acknowledged as victims, then somehow it pushes the other victims out of the way coz in their mind there's only a limited amount of room allowed for victims and the only worthy victims are on the 'side' they support. Of course the reality is very different, but that way of looking at things is evident in both Israeli and Palestinian medias because it's used amongst both as some sort of proof that their suffering is greater than that of the other....

When it comes to this forum, part of the reason is also the adversarial atmosphere here. When I first started posting here someone pointed out to me that for those who invest a lot of emotional energy in this debate, an effect is that they feel they'll be seen as weak if they show sympathy for the other side. And something I've experienced personally here is that what I say doesn't matter. I've stated my opinion many times that attacks on civilians are totally unjustifiable regardless of whether they're Israeli or Palestinian, and that I'm totally opposed to suicide bombings, only to be accused (sometimes in reply to a post where I've stated that) of supporting attacks on Israelis. Which is why I'm careful not to worry about what people don't say or comment on (after all, none of us really know for sure who's got who on ignore and why they're not posting in a particular thread), but to focus on what's actually said. If we were to focus on the lack of cries of condemnation when it's been Palestinian civilians killed over the past few weeks, then there's two pro-Israeli posters who haven't condemned those killings, but I know from getting a feel for their posts overall that the silence doesn't mean they don't care or anything like that....

fwiw, I'm not in the habit of getting into cries of condemnation. As far as I'm concerned loud wails of outrage are kind of pointless and not my style so I'd much rather just point out whether or not a particular attack is a legitimate military one or not eg. the murder of the Israeli hitch-hiker wasn't in any way justified or legitimate, while the capture of the Israeli soldier was a legitimate attack on a military target....

p.s. back to what Tom actually said - unfortunately he's correct. I also expect this to end with Israel killing many more Palestinian children if the events of the past few weeks are anything to go by...

[Tom Joad]

40. Right, it is certainly tragic though.

But that Olmert put this young fellow in harm's way, while Israel is continuing its brutal occupation and oppression of Palestinians, is a terrible tragedy.

I do hope he is released. and that Israel releases all the political prisoners. Especially the hundreds of children that it holds at any particular time.

[Behind the Aegis]

42. You are joking, right?!

"But that Olmert put this young fellow in harm's way..." You are aware this kidnapping took place in Israel?! It didn't take place in the Occupied West Bank. BTW...Gaza is no longer occupied, so even if the soilder had been in Gaza, your message is off.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

64. my "posistion"?

I do not believe that anyone, at any time, is "game".

I refuse to carry weapons of war.

I also believe that you are not able to comprehend, or pretend to explain, my views.
You consistently misrepresent them.

[barb162]

25. Poor try ,Violet

The subthread about Pal kids suicide bombing, shooting guns, and all and then getting arrested reminded me of the specific Palestinian targetting and bombing of the bus with the very innocent Israeli kids.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. I see. So you were referring to yrself in the post title...

"Yes, some have extremely strange values and will do anything
to change the very unpleasant subjectof the OP."


Oh-kay :)

[lonestarnot]

33. There is a poll on the Jeruselum Post where 80% are in favor of

concessions for release of this man. It's on the front page.

[Poll_Blind]

38. Lonestarnot: In my opinion ultra-conservative elements which have....

...risen to positions of great authority (specifically in the legal and civil systems but also in a more general governmental sense) in the Israeli government do not represent, proportionally, the sentiments of the population. Just as in the United States the political makeup seems to be (Left & Moderate), Conservative and Ultra-Conservative (a smaller but more vocal and action-driven minority).

  Near-universal military training (and/or intimate association with same) in the IDF and a real desire to be a "new type of Jew"*, all members of the Israeli political spectrum are much more independent-thinking, less hierarchy-based than their American counterparts. Because of this, some terribly unpopular (not to mention, deleterious) moves get made when the wrong (in this case conservative/ultra-conservative) groups find themselves in power.

PB

* Confident, independent, adaptable and aggressive. Note: This is not meant as an actual reflection of the Jewish character but a reaction by Jews to stereotypes they were subject to. If this statement is still somewhat confusing, learning more about the the Hebrew word freier and its deeper implications (not just stopping at the flat definition) in the Israeli psyche.

(added "governmental" in first run-on sentence)

[lonestarnot]

44. I have the same impression.

If the poll that I referred to in the Post was any indication, they seem to be subject to the same fucking take over we've been fucked over with and continue to fight.

[The Magistrate]

45. There Is Also Polling Data, Ma'am

Suggesting that about that opercentage of Arab Palestinians would accept resolution of the conflict in the form of two states existing side by side. It is generally the case that the people as a whole show better sense than their leaders.

[Phx_Dem]

67. what percent?

thanks.