It will be two years this June since the daring capture of the Israeli corporal Gilad Shalit by the military wing of Hamas, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, in the course of an attack on an IDF position near Gaza. Following this embarrassing incident, the Israelis tried everything they could, including the mass murder of civilians in Gaza, to force Hamas to release Shalit, but to no avail. Numerous diplomatic efforts were also made by various parties to secure Shalit’s release, but they all failed due to the Israeli refusal to release the many hundreds of Palestinian hostages it holds under a variety of pretexts.
The Palestinians have presented the capture of Shalit as a “desperate tactic to obtain the release of kidnapped Palestinian political prisoners“. If that was the goal, then this tactic as clearly failed, at least so far. Could it eventually succeed? Possibly. Does that mean that Hamas should stand firm and refuse to release Shalit? I don’t think so. In fact, I think that the continuous detention of Shalit is fundamentally wrong.
What is at stake here goes far beyond the individual drama of Shalit and the many hundreds of Palestinians kidnapped by Israel which, while certainly important, do not somehow void all the political and moral issues underlying Hamas’ actions.
If there is something like an “Israeli contribution to international law” it is definitely the constant, systematic and self-righteous disregard for any and all forms of international law by all the Israeli governments since the founding of the Israeli state to today. From the massive use of torture at home and abroad (remember the infamous Khiam prison in South Lebanon?), to the bombing of civilians in Palestine and Lebanon, from the regular violations of international borders, to the murder of UN officials, from the deliberate creation of pollution during the 2006 war to the killing of opponents without trial (aka “targeted assassination”) – the Israelis have put themselves far above and beyond any pretense of legality a long time ago. In fact, it is painfully clear that there is *nothing* the Israelis would refrain from doing because it is illegal; that’s simply not how they think. It would be extremely naive to expect a criminal and outlaw Apartheid state to behave according to any internationally accepted norms of civilized behavior. So much is clear.
But what about Hamas?
For all the propagandistic labelling of Hamas as a ‘terrorist group’ Hamas is, in reality, a national liberation movement with a rather checkered track with regards to international law. While there is no doubt whatsoever that the use of violence against an occupying force is legal, Hamas did conduct and support operations which were clearly aimed at Israeli civilians. While it is true that in a militarized society like the Israeli one the concept of ‘civilian’ is somewhat ambiguous, and while it is true that any use of violent force has the potential of harming non-combatants, the laws of war have a requirement of proportionality which states that a) non-combatants cannot be deliberately targeted and b) that the likely harm to civilians resulting from a military operation must be justified by the importance of the target. Yes, that is vague and open to interpretation, but no matter how hard I try I cannot see that bombing of buses filled with civilians can be justified under such principles. Let’s face it: Hamas did commit terrorist acts in the past.
That being said, Hamas’ violations of the laws of war pale in comparison with the numerous atrocities of the Israelis, so I am not putting too much blame on Hamas for its ‘less than pristine’ track record in this matter. The case of Gilad Shalit is, I submit, fundamentally different.
Unlike Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, Shalit cannot be considered a POW, at least not under international law since the conflict between Israel and Hamas is does not fall under the category of “international war”. Still, the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention does apply to any conflit situation, as does international humanitarian and human rights law. But that is really a rather legalistic way of looking at things. Common sense tell us something even more obvious: Shalit is detained as a hostage to obtain a release of other hostages. While an exchange of prisoners between Hezbollah (acting as the de-facto army of Lebanon) and Israel could be viewed as an exchange of POWs and while a detention of IDF POWs by Hezbollah until such an exchange takes places could be considered as legal or, at least, semi-legal, no such arguments can be made in the case of Shalit.
In fact, the lawyers of B’Tselem have clearly indicated that the holding of Shalit is a war crime and that he should be released unconditionally and immediately (btw – if one considers that the laws of war do not apply in the case of Shalit, then the applicable law is human rights law which also prohibits the taking of hostages).
In the case of Shalit, Hamas is committing a clear violation of international law which cannot be justified by the importance of a military objective (the release of Palestinian hostages is not, by definition, a military objective). Furthermore, in deliberately disregarding international law Hamas will find itself in the bad company of Israel and the USA whose defiance of civilized norms of behavior will become less unique, less abject, at least in the eyes of a public opinion still dependent on the corporate media to make up its mind. I know, I know, Israel holds many hundreds of hostages and Hamas holds just one. But who outside the Middle-East can even name a single Palestinian hostage? The “hostage Shalit” becomes a flag, a cause and, most importantly, a veil behind which the Israelis can conceal the large number of hostages they hold. Thus, holding Shalit is not only illegal, it is also counter-productive. Even worse, I believe that it is also immoral.
No matter what the Israelis do to the Palestinians I cannot accept a logic which makes one man pay for the sins of others. Before being an IDF corporal and a bargaining chip, Shalit is first and foremost a man. Unless somebody is incurably racist, anyone would have to recognize that this fundamental quality of being our fellow human being is what should matter most to us when thinking about his plight and the plight of his family. Of course, Shalit is no ‘more human’ than the hundreds of Palestinians taken hostage by the Israelis, they too deserve as much sympathy from us as he does. But neither is Shalit ‘less human’ or somehow less deserving of sympathy and compassion.
How can the two year detention of one human being be justified by the lofty goal of releasing other human beings?! Is this a case of the end justifies the means? Those who would answer ‘yes’ should remember that history shows that the means always end up defining the end.
Hamas appears to be unable to secure the freedom of many Palestinian hostages, but it can secure the freedom of one Jewish young man. Does it matter to this religious organization whether the freed person is Jewish or Palestinian? Does it matter that by releasing Shalit Hamas would loose a powerful bargaining chip?
Since Hamas is a religious organization, please allow me to make a purely religious case for the release of Shalit.
God does not command us to achieve outcomes, not in the Torah, not in the Bible and not in the Qur’an. There is no commandment beginning with the words “Thou shalt achieve…”. God’s commandments are inevitably focused on our *individual actions* rather then on the possible results of these actions. Simply put, God tells us “do the right thing no matter what and let Me worry about the outcome”. It would be outright bizarre for a religious person to say that “if we release Shalit our fellow Palestinians will never be released”. What about God’s all-mighty Hand?! If God wants to liberate a hostage, any hostage, He can just make it happen and he does not need any ‘help’ from well-intentioned human beings who, to make things only worse, actually commit a grievous sin with the hope that the end result will somehow justify it. No, God commands us to live piously, to equally love one another regardless of faith or ethnicity and to refrain from committing evil acts. Any truly religious person should accept that God can do anything and that all that is asked of us is to accept His will, even if it is difficult to understand.
It is our task to free those we can free, and it’s God’s task to free those whom we cannot free. At least that is what a religious person or organization should accept as self-evident. Since Hamas cannot free the Palestinian hostages, it should free the one person it can set free: Shalit.
The holding of Shalit is thus illegal, counter-productive and immoral, in particular from a religious point of view. While I can understand what Hamas hoped to achieve when it captured Shalit two years ago, I see no possibly further justification for his detention: keeping him any longer is needlessly cruel and a disgrace for those who hold him.
Gilad Shalit should therefore be released immediately and unconditionally.
VS,
You are totally wrong on this issue. I am actually taken aback by your post.
I will elaborate later when I have time.
ok, I very much look forward to your comments!
While I have nothing against Gilad Shalit personally and I hope for his safe return, he can not claim to be an innocent bystander in the matter.
My understanding is that he was part of an Israeli artillery unit that shelled Gaza. To argue that Palestinians have no right to attack or capture the very soldiers who are shelling them is to argue the have an obligation to passively accept whatever punishment the Israelis decide to mete out. If Shalit were a civilian in his home, you would have a point.
Secondly, there is no public relations victory to be had by Shalit’s unconditional release. No one is going to pat Hamas on the back and say “good job.” Instead the commentary would be that Hamas is desperate, weak and offering surrender. They would get none of their prisoners…many of whom really were “kidnapped.”
A friend recently suggested that I “stopped cheering for imperialism, terrorism, militarism, etc… (of course, it would help if you got your facts straight).”
My question: What is imperialism? Is it free market globalization? Is it free trade and free investment. If so, then I plead guilty as charged.
“Imperialism” has facilitated hundreds of millions of Chinese, Indians, and other people to work their way out of extreme poverty. Isn’t fighting poverty around the world one of the highest priorities for everyone? If so, I hope that all countries become more imperialist, and are led by increasingly imperialist leaders. Three of my favorite imperialist leaders are Lula, Manmohan Singh and Hu.
Perhaps some think imperialism is associated with America versus other countries? Why is this? Is it because America has 1/5th of global income? Is it because Americans want other countries to become more successful because that improves the living standards of most Americans?
Perhaps the problem is in my understanding. If so, please enlighten me.
I don’t support the deliberate targeting of civilians, which I define as terrorism. I also strongly object to all governments that are soft on terror. For decades, America was soft on terror and that was wrong. America and many other countries still are far too soft on terror. This has to stop.
Regarding militarism . . . I guess there are two models.
There is the Gandhian way: love thy enemy with all thy heart and soul, and keep loving them even as they brutally torture and kill everyone that you know and care about . . . until your culture and civilization joins the dump bin of history, like more than 95% of all recorded civilizations. Gandhi said the most important form of nonviolence was nonviolence of thought. We cannot be angry at anyone, ever. We must always love and care for everyone. Gandhi and the Dalai Lama represent this view. They would continue to love the oppressor even if they torture and kill every Indian and Tibetan in the world. They would calmly sit and observe what is happening while praying “forgive them lord, for they know not what they do.”
I greatly admire true Gandhians and true pacifists.
I however subscribe to the view that it is important to love thy enemy with all thy thought and soul. We must love them as embodiments of God. But we should simultaneously be willing to fight them with complete equanimity and self sacrifice, out of duty. We must carry out this duty with anger and malice towards none.
The primary threat to the world today after global poverty, infectious diseases, drinking water, pollution, global warming, is our collective global security threat. There are two major threats:
1. Global organized crime
2. Takfiris
Every other threat is an order of magnitude smaller. The whole world must come together to address these global challenges, and provide these global public goods. I am afraid that America might not demonstrate leadership on these threats and wimp out because of fear. America cannot free ride and expect others to solve these problems without our help.
Some wise people think that an alliance led by India, Russia, Israel (maybe China) and the world’s “lesser” muslims—including Shia–will have to defeat the dark forces on their own, without western help. I hope that the West does not abandon the rest of the world out of fear, and an attempt to free-ride. (what is it with the west and free-riding?) I hope the West stands by the rest of the world in this twilight struggle.
I hope that Israel, Hezbollah and Iran can form an alliance to take the fight to the Takfiri. What a huge blow to the Takfiri would that be.
If that is militarism, then I admit my militarism freely. Please explain to my why I am wrong.
And to get back to Vineyard’s article: congratulations! I agree with you and hope Hamas follows your good advice . . . and then later reaches a peace agreement with Israel. Hamas has fought AQ. Hamas would be a powerful ally in the war against Takfiri. Israel of course should give back the West Bank and Gaza, as well as provide a Marshall plan to the occupied territories (and a free trade/investment/cross border work permit agreement.)
Just imagine, an alliance between Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel and Iran. :-) :-) :-) Can you even imagine how awesome that would be!!! It will be known as the alliance of unnumbered Takfiri tears!
Anand like to play dumb and act like he doesn’t understand completely obvious things when they go against his way of “thinking”.
New Imperialism refers to the colonial expansion adopted by Europe’s powers and, later, Japan and the United States, during the 19th and early 20th centuries; approximately from the Franco-Prussian War to World War I (c. 1871–1914). The period is distinguished by an unprecedented pursuit of what has been termed “empire for empire’s sake,” aggressive competition for overseas territorial acquisitions and the emergence in colonizing countries of doctrines of racial superiority which denied the fitness of subjugated peoples for self-government.
The New Imperialism gave rise to new social views of colonialism. Rudyard Kipling, for instance, urged the United States to “Take up the White Man’s burden” of bringing the European version of civilization to the other peoples of the world, regardless of whether they wanted this form of civilization.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-459es.html
Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, several commentators have advanced the idea of security through empire. They claim that the best way to protect the United States in the 21st century is to emulate the British, Roman, and other empires of the past. The logic behind the idea is that if the United States can consolidate the international system under its enlightened hegemony, America will be both safer and more prosperous. Although the word “empire” is not used, the Bush administration’s ambitious new National Security Strategy seems to embrace the notion of neoimperialism.
Anand,check it out.
New American Century
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:ruMnHnl98cAJ:www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf+PNAC/%22rebuilding+America%27s+Defenses&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
http://indexresearch.blogspot.com/2006/02/pnac-rebuilding-americas-defenses.html
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm
http://www.pissedoffcombatveterans.com/id57.html
If Shalit were a civilian in his home, you would have a point.
Keep in mind that the IDF is a conscript force. But yes, there is no doubt that participating in the IDF’s atrocities is deeply immoral. The point of arguing for Shalit’s release is not to somehow make him a hero, but only to show that he has now become a victim and, just as any victim, he deserves our compassion.
No one is going to pat Hamas on the back and say “good job.”
That is possible, but to a religious organization doing what is right should be a self-justifying goal.
Look, this kid has paid for whatever crime he has committed and there is nothing to be gained by holding him any longer. By releasing him Hamas can simply do what is humane.
I bet Hamas are treating him better (more as a POW) than how the Isrealis are treating kidnapped Palestinians.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html
Imperialism 101
Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political leaders. When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so that empires become “commonwealths,” and colonies become “territories” or “dominions” (or, as in the case of Puerto Rico, “commonwealths” too). Imperialist military interventions become matters of “national defense,” “national security,” and maintaining “stability” in one or another region. In this book I want to look at imperialism for what it really is.
Across the Entire Globe
By “imperialism” I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people.
Because of low wages, low taxes, nonexistent work benefits, weak labor unions, and nonexistent occupational and environmental protections, U.S. corporate profit rates in the Third World are 50 percent greater than in developed countries. Citibank, one of the largest U.S. firms, earns about 75 percent of its profits from overseas operations. While profit margins at home sometimes have had a sluggish growth, earnings abroad have continued to rise dramatically, fostering the development of what has become known as the multinational or transnational corporation. Today some four hundred transnational companies control about 80 percent of the capital assets of the global free market and are extending their grasp into the ex-communist countries of Eastern Europe.
I bet Hamas are treating him better (more as a POW) than how the Israelis are treating kidnapped Palestinians.
Oh, I am quite sure that this is true, no argument here. None whatsoever.
“there is no doubt that participating in the IDF’s atrocities is deeply immoral.” Why? Aren’t the IDF Israeli patriots serving a cause greater than themselves?
“I bet Hamas are treating him better (more as a POW) than how the Isrealis are treating kidnapped Palestinians.” Why? Do Israelis mistreat prisoners in their prisons? Is there evidence for this? Why would a good people like Israel do this? Mistreating prisoners harms the country doing it. No country should do it, Israel included.
I strongly object to bureaucrats with a God Complex who love to poke their nose around and tell everyone what to do. The British License Raj in India was a perfect example. The type of empire I prefer is one of deregulation, simplification of regulation, equal treatment under the law for everyone, and freedom of opportunity for as many people as possible.
One person who personifies the ideal imperialist is Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. He is unabashedly and unapologetically pro business and pro corporate, and leagues better than the big government borderline socialist President Bush. I wish we could switch Bush for Lula.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luiz_In%C3%A1cio_Lula_da_Silva
Aren’t the IDF Israeli patriots serving a cause greater than themselves?
Yes, of course, they serve the greater cause of imperialism, racism, militarism, aggression and terror.
Do Israelis mistreat prisoners in their prisons? Is there evidence for this?
Anand, your ignorance never ceases to amaze me.
Why would a good people like Israel do this?
Ever considered that your assumptions about the Israelis are deeply mistaken?
I strongly object to bureaucrats with a God Complex who love to poke their nose around and tell everyone what to do. The British License Raj in India was a perfect example
And I strongly object to you posting off-topic rants.
This is your blog and I respect that. I was just clarifying what I meant by imperialism . . . that is if imperialism = capitalism.
I still don’t understand what you and many other people mean by imperialism.
I would like some evidence that Israel mistreats prisoners. If they do, then they deserve to be condemned.
I think people are intrinsically good, Israelis included. This said, Israel has on several occasions not lived up to their exulted values and greatness. This is very sad.
“imperialism” because Israel is free market?
“racism” aren’t about a quarter of Israelis not Jewish. Most Palestestinian Israeli citizens are quite prosperous and successful. No country has defeated racism fully (Darfur is a great example of that). But why is Israel worse than other countries?
“militarism, aggression” I’ll give you that. Israelis are a pretty martial and even slightly paranoid. “Never again” is an important theme of theirs. This is both why Israel is admired around the world (for being great warriors), and why Israel is criticized around the world (when the Israelis go too far.)
“terror” There have been some terrible Jewish terrorists who have done awful things. My Jewish friends have told me about them. Some of the armed settlers can be pretty rough too (many Israelis are a little scared of them. Which is why they want the settlers to stay in the occupied territories “far away from us.”) But most Israelis do not support terror, and do not dislike Palestinians. Most Israelis want peace and friendship with Palestinians. Most members of the IDF seem quite disturbed by civilian casualties. They don’t delight in it. I hope that the Israelis reach a complete cease fire with Hamas and Fatah soon.
VS,
Let me say that I was really surprised to see your piece; you could say shocked. At first I was not sure whether you wrote it or just simply posted something written by someone else; but then I got your email and realized that those were your words.
Unwittingly you engaged in this piece in demonizing Hamas and the Palestinians. This was shocking since I know you as a supporter of the Palestinians. I do not think that this characterization on my part is too harsh, since you accused Hamas and the Palestinians of committing an illegal and an immoral act by capturing Shalit and insisting on exchanging him for Palestinian prisoners. You even considered it a war crime; a war crime, Saker?
Let us start at the top and define what we are talking about. First of all Hamas never claimed to be engaged in Gandhi-style civil disobedience, nor believed in the viability of such approach. You say that Hizbullah was justified in capturing the two IOF soldiers, but Hamas was not. You said that Hizbullah is the Lebanese resistance and as such was engaged in legitimate military acts on behalf of the Lebanese state. Actually Hamas is in a clearer situation than Hizbullah. There is a Lebanese army which theoretically at least represents the state; Hizbullah is not part of the Lebanese army. In the case of Hamas, it was elected as the legitimate government, hence Hamas’ military arm in Gaza represents the elected Palestinian government.
I will use the Israeli logic and declaration that the Gaza Strip is not occupied territory since the IOF was kicked out of it. What is the status of Hamas’ military then? It is a military, which obviously is no where near the IOF in capability, trying to defend Gaza and its inhabitants. Therefore, the status of Shalit is that of a prisoner of war, no ifs or buts.
What was Shalit and his tank unit doing when he was captured? His tank unit was at the Gaza border shelling civilian targets, in exactly the same manner which killed the Palestinian Reuters cameraman and several Palestinian children over a week ago. For all we know, Shalit was directly responsible for killing and wounding similar Gaza civilians. That is the war crime, which you glossed over. What do you do with a unit of war criminals shelling your civilian population? Do you burst out singing, “….all we are saying…..is give peace a chance?” To stop this war criminal and his unit, Hamas sent some of its fighters who attacked Shalit’s tank unit. He was injured when his tank was hit. Two Hamas fighters and two IOF soldiers were also killed. Now that you have stopped a war criminal in his tracks, what do you do with him? Do you send him on his way and wish him a nice day? The Palestinians could have done what the IOF often does with wounded Palestinians, namely kill them on the spot. Instead Hamas was much more humane; he was captured and his wounds were treated while in captivity.
Now you are saying that Hamas should unconditionally release him without even insisting on a prisoner exchange. Your demand is even more extreme than the IOF. The IOF never contested that Shalit was a prisoner of war. Israel has been negotiating about how many and which of the more than 11,000 Palestinians (most of them are civilians, truly kidnapped in the middle of the night, which happens almost daily) are to be released. In other words, Israel never challenged the principle of prisoner exchange.
If Israel does not reach an agreement then the normal course of events is for the two sides to wait until the end of the status of war, regardless of how many years that takes. This is the rule in all conflicts.
It was rather disingenuous on your part to advise Hamas, since it is a religious movement, to rely on the will of God for the release of the 11,000 Palestinians kidnapped by Israel! Come on, you can do better than that Saker!
In summary, it was truly shocking to read you demonizing the Palestinians. Whatever the Palestinian do, they are demonized and labeled as terrorists! And finally, when Hamas beat the IOF in a strictly military operation, killing two Zionists and capturing one, you consider this as an immoral and illegal act?
Saker, that was way over the top.
Dear Tony,
I have to say that I am no less baffled that you seem to be. Did you really read what I wrote? If yes, how did you so much misunderstand me, is it that my writing has become so convoluted?
Let me respond to your points one by one in order to clear any misunderstandings, ok?
Unwittingly you engaged in this piece in demonizing Hamas and the Palestinians. This was shocking since I know you as a supporter of the Palestinians
First, if I, as you say, *unwittingly* demonized the Palestinians I apologize. But I sincerely do not feel that I demonized anyone. Was I critical of Hamas? Yes, of course. Is that tantamount to “demonization”? I really don’t think so. I try to view Hamas, and everybody else, fairly, objectively. I do not idealize Hamas or anyone else, but none of that is demonization, at least not in my book.
I do not think that this characterization on my part is too harsh, since you accused Hamas and the Palestinians of committing an illegal and an immoral act by capturing Shalit and insisting on exchanging him for Palestinian prisoners.
You conflate two very different issues here. No, I did not say that the capture of Shalit was illegal or immoral. Yes, I did say that holding him for two years is.
You even considered it a war crime; a war crime, Saker?
That is not my subjective view, that is what international law says. One can chose to disregard it (like the Israelis do), but one would be ill-advised to ignore this fact.
You say that Hizbullah was justified in capturing the two IOF soldiers, but Hamas was not.
No. I said that under international law Hezbollah’s holding on to prisoners captured in the context of an international war could be considered as legal or at least semi-legal (Hezbollah not being recognized as a state actor).
You said that Hizbullah is the Lebanese resistance and as such was engaged in legitimate military acts on behalf of the Lebanese state. Actually Hamas is in a clearer situation than Hizbullah. There is a Lebanese army which theoretically at least represents the state; Hizbullah is not part of the Lebanese army. In the case of Hamas, it was elected as the legitimate government, hence Hamas’ military arm in Gaza represents the elected Palestinian government. I will use the Israeli logic and declaration that the Gaza Strip is not occupied territory since the IOF was kicked out of it. What is the status of Hamas’ military then?
Not quite. The fact that the IDF was kicked out of the Gaza strip does not automatically grant Hamas the status of a state actor. Tony, that is NOT ME saying that, that is what international law says. I am not saying that we should all bow on awe because international law says xyz, but I am saying that we should be aware of the legal issues involved in all this.
It is a military, which obviously is no where near the IOF in capability, trying to defend Gaza and its inhabitants. Therefore, the status of Shalit is that of a prisoner of war, no ifs or buts.
To quote Wikipedia on this
——-
To be entitled to prisoner of war status, the captured service member must be a “lawful combatant” entitled to combatant’s privilege–which gives them immunity for crimes constituting lawful acts of war, e.g., killing enemy troops. To qualify under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the combatant must have conducted military operations according to the laws and customs of war: be part of a chain of command and wear a “fixed distinctive marking, visible from a distance”, and bear arms openly. Thus, francs-tireurs, “terrorists”, saboteurs, mercenaries and spies may be excluded. In practice, these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear an issued uniform or carry arms openly yet are sometimes granted POW status if captured (although Additional Protocol 1 may give them POW status in some circumstances). These criteria are normally restricted to international armed conflicts: in civil wars insurgents are often treated as traitors or criminals by government forces, and are sometimes executed.
——-
What was Shalit and his tank unit doing when he was captured? His tank unit was at the Gaza border shelling civilian targets, in exactly the same manner which killed the Palestinian Reuters cameraman and several Palestinian children over a week ago. For all we know, Shalit was directly responsible for killing and wounding similar Gaza civilians. That is the war crime, which you glossed over. What do you do with a unit of war criminals shelling your civilian population? Do you burst out singing, “….all we are saying…..is give peace a chance?” To stop this war criminal and his unit, Hamas sent some of its fighters who attacked Shalit’s tank unit. He was injured when his tank was hit. Two Hamas fighters and two IOF soldiers were also killed. Now that you have stopped a war criminal in his tracks, what do you do with him? Do you send him on his way and wish him a nice day? The Palestinians could have done what the IOF often does with wounded Palestinians, namely kill them on the spot. Instead Hamas was much more humane; he was captured and his wounds were treated while in captivity.
I did not gloss over anything, in fact in a comment above I explained why I thought that this entire line of reasoning is not pertinent to the issue considered which is not Shalit’s innocence or lack thereof, but Hamas’ decisions in regards to his status and future.
Now you are saying that Hamas should unconditionally release him without even insisting on a prisoner exchange. Your demand is even more extreme than the IOF. The IOF never contested that Shalit was a prisoner of war. Israel has been negotiating about how many and which of the more than 11,000 Palestinians (most of them are civilians, truly kidnapped in the middle of the night, which happens almost daily) are to be released. In other words, Israel never challenged the principle of prisoner exchange.
That is because I do not take cues from the Israelis on moral issues. Israelis are thugs and they live by thuggish rules. I reject such rules, I refuse to abide by them, and I do not think that Hamas should abide by them either.
If Israel does not reach an agreement then the normal course of events is for the two sides to wait until the end of the status of war, regardless of how many years that takes. This is the rule in all conflicts.
Well, either we stick to the laws of war or we do not. A selective reading of the rights and obligations under these laws is just not helpful, I think.
It was rather disingenuous on your part to advise Hamas, since it is a religious movement, to rely on the will of God for the release of the 11,000 Palestinians kidnapped by Israel! Come on, you can do better than that Saker!
No, as a matter of fact, I cannot. The single most important prayer I was taught since I was a kid is “Lord have mercy”; later I understood that truly we cannot somehow ‘force’ God to make things happen the way we want them to be. Even much less so can we hope in our own forces to achieve anything. What we can do is submit to the Will of God and obey His commandments, that’s it. I am not asking you to agree with any of the above, but I am asking you to accept that this is something a religious person or organization would not argue against.
In summary, it was truly shocking to read you demonizing the Palestinians. Whatever the Palestinian do, they are demonized and labeled as terrorists! And finally, when Hamas beat the IOF in a strictly military operation, killing two Zionists and capturing one, you consider this as an immoral and illegal act? Saker, that was way over the top
Tony, I might be naive, I might be blind, I might be ignorant and I might be grievously mistaken, but I wish you gave me the benefit of the doubt in what regards my intentions and goals. That you would interpret my plea for Shalit as a demonization of the Palestinians saddens me. As a friend of the Palestinians and of their cause I dare to openly and honestly voice my doubts, reservations and disagreements with them when they do something I do not think is right. Doing so is, I think, a friendly and laudable act and hardly a demonization of anyone.
Kind regards,
The Saker
Like Tony and others, I am rather baffled by this post. Of course Hamas must not release the French tank-gunner without conditions. The reasons? Here are a few:
1) Hamas, and the Palestinians in general, have very few cards to play. Shalit is one of them. This is because the Israelis, though they love to consider themselves a ‘tough’ nation at war, are actually very bothered by the capture of one single IOF officer. Precedence shows that they are willing to exchange large numbers of Palestinian prisoners for much smaller numbers of Israelis, and it is highly likely that, sooner or later, they will do something similar in this case. Were Shalit to be released with no preconditions, they would have ono incentive to release anyone in return.
2) You say that releasing Shalit would show Israel up and deprive them of a PR tool. C’mon Saker, surely you are not that naive? The Israelis will ALWAYS find a reason not to deal with whichever Palestinian group they are demonising right now, and if no such reason exists, it will be fabricated. Take the current situaton in Gaza, where Blair and others shake their heads and say “ah, if only Hamas would stop the rockets, everything would be OK’. Never mind that Hamas have offered ceasefires on several occasions, only to have them rejected out of hand by Israel. And still Hamas are depicted as the spoilers. I’m surprised I even need to remind you of this.
3) Regarding the ‘morality’ of holding Shalit, again, c’mon, Saker! This guy is a tank gunner for god’s sake, someone who very likely participated in actions like the murder of 4 children in Beit Hanoun last week. Yes, he is serving in a conscript army but there are a (very) few Israelis brave and principiled enough to take the consequences of not serving in that army. Shalit is not one of them. Anyway, the point is moot, as being a conscript rather than a volunteer is not a criterion ever taken into account in such instances.
4) The ‘legality’ of Shalit’s capture also seems pretty clear to me. He is a POW, captured by members of the legitimate govt. of Palestine. I don’t understand your need to obfuscate here.
5) Israel, the US – and, I’m sorry to say, the EU -show NO willingness whatsoever to do business with Hamas. None – their ideological objectons are just too strong, foolish though they may be. Therefore, no matter what concessions Hamas make, they will never be enough. Again, I’m shocked that I need to point this out to you.
PS: Why the picture of the goofy French tank gunner? And if you must, why not one in full military fatigues, as he would have been on the day he was ‘kidnapped’?
Dear Irish Eyes,
Like Tony and others, I am rather baffled by this post.
Well, what can I say? I knew that I would catch hell from most of my readers when I posted this. I was hoping for at least some understanding for my point of view and arguments but I now realize that I my hopes were mistaken. Let me respond to your comments one by one:
Of course Hamas must not release the French tank-gunner without conditions. The reasons? Here are a few:
1) Hamas, and the Palestinians in general, have very few cards to play. Shalit is one of them. This is because the Israelis, though they love to consider themselves a ‘tough’ nation at war, are actually very bothered by the capture of one single IOF officer. Precedence shows that they are willing to exchange large numbers of Palestinian prisoners for much smaller numbers of Israelis, and it is highly likely that, sooner or later, they will do something similar in this case. Were Shalit to be released with no preconditions, they would have ono incentive to release anyone in return.
That is the thing. I do not think of Shalit as a ‘card’ to be ‘played’. I think of him as a *person*, and individual. Yes, keeping him in captivity might be a better bargaining strategy, I am not denying that, but I think that there are certain strategies which should not be used even if they might be ‘effective’ simply because they are morally wrong.
2) You say that releasing Shalit would show Israel up and deprive them of a PR tool. C’mon Saker, surely you are not that naive? The Israelis will ALWAYS find a reason not to deal with whichever Palestinian group they are demonising right now, and if no such reason exists, it will be fabricated. Take the current situaton in Gaza, where Blair and others shake their heads and say “ah, if only Hamas would stop the rockets, everything would be OK’. Never mind that Hamas have offered ceasefires on several occasions, only to have them rejected out of hand by Israel. And still Hamas are depicted as the spoilers. I’m surprised I even need to remind you of this.
Actually, there is no need to remind me of that, I am aware of all this. And I think that I have made it clear from the beginning that I am no big fan of the Israelis, their racism or their lies, have I not?! But handing the Israelis a PR tool just because they would fabricate one anyway just does not seem a very smart strategy to me.
3) Regarding the ‘morality’ of holding Shalit, again, c’mon, Saker! This guy is a tank gunner for god’s sake, someone who very likely participated in actions like the murder of 4 children in Beit Hanoun last week. Yes, he is serving in a conscript army but there are a (very) few Israelis brave and principiled enough to take the consequences of not serving in that army. Shalit is not one of them. Anyway, the point is moot, as being a conscript rather than a volunteer is not a criterion ever taken into account in such instances.
I am not saying that holding Shalit is immoral because he is a kind, gentle and highly ethical person. I am saying that he has already paid for his role in whatever crimes he committed, not as a decision-maker, but as a small pawn, I would add. Besides, the point is not to free him for his sake, the point is to free him for Hamas’ sake.
4) The ‘legality’ of Shalit’s capture also seems pretty clear to me. He is a POW, captured by members of the legitimate govt. of Palestine. I don’t understand your need to obfuscate here.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. However, in this case, I am just quoting rather non-controvertial definitions of international law, not some personal opinion of mine.
5) Israel, the US – and, I’m sorry to say, the EU -show NO willingness whatsoever to do business with Hamas. None – their ideological objectons are just too strong, foolish though they may be. Therefore, no matter what concessions Hamas make, they will never be enough. Again, I’m shocked that I need to point this out to you.
You needed not. I am aware of all this. And this hardly is pertinent to my arguments.
PS: Why the picture of the goofy French tank gunner? And if you must, why not one in full military fatigues, as he would have been on the day he was ‘kidnapped’?
Good point. I choose that picture *precisely* because it does not show him as a uniformed Israeli, but as a *PERSON* for Heaven’s sake! How can we allow uniforms to mask the humans who carry it? I used to wear a uniform in my distant past life, and so did many of my friends and we never became less human, even if sinfully so, just because of that. You know what? Once the stupid parades are over, the brass is back in their villas, the guns stored and the soldiers in their beds at night they become what they truly are: frightened, lonely *kids*.
It is painfully clear to me that I have failed in convincing anyone of anything here. That is painful, but if that is the price to pay for not being a bystander to something which I find morally wrong – then I accept it.
The Saker
I back Vineyard all the way on this.
Sorry to put it bluntly, but Hamas has no support in the nonmuslim world.
Why in the world is this blog so America and Western Europe focused? It is irrational and bizarre.
Please focus on the how the emerging great powers view Israel and Hamas. This is who both should be courting.
For the truth on how the rest of the world views America, please see:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2008/05/01/1/a-conversation-with-fareed-zakaria
We are in a post American world. Fareed says it very gently so that it doesn’t hurt American ears. But in Singapore, Malaysia, India, Hong Kong, Japan etc., they can be much more direct. America increasingly doesn’t matter. They don’t care about American policies.
Even Israel is starting to move on. Notice how carefully they cultivate India, Japan and other great global powers. Israel, smart as they are, see what is happening.
For a blunter book on what is happening, see:
http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=87893
The egoism of some Americans (especially on the hard left and to a lesser degree the right) really astound me. They imagine that America is so much more important than what it really is. It is like they live in the Twilight Zone.
Now for the enemies of Iraq, read and weep: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/05/iraqi_security_force_13.php
This year, the GoI spends $13 billion on the ISF compared to 2.7 billion by the US government (the peace movement has succeeded in cutting off aid to the ISF.) The MNF-I increasingly no longer matters to the ISF and its operations. Iraqis are also moving on, with increasingly less American influence and involvement. The arrogance of Americans who portray the fighting in Iraq as largely or mostly about America never ceases to amuse non-American ears. The ISF does most of the heavy lifting on its own, thank you very much.
Anand, for Christsakes, please, PLEASE do not side with me!!! I am already getting beaten up for what I wrote and the last thing I need is any ‘support’ from you, really! Getting your support is like Condi’s “kiss of death” to Abbas: its just makes me look like a clown :-)
Nice one VS.Anand get some help.
I knew you would play dumb and act like imperialism is some vague, obscure, indecipherable concept. What a sick joke.
By “imperialism” I mean the process whereby the dominant politico-economic interests of one nation expropriate for their own enrichment the land, labor, raw materials, and markets of another people.
By the twentieth century, the industrial nations were exporting not only goods but capital, in the form of machinery, technology, investments, and loans. To say that we have entered the stage of capital export and investment is not to imply that the plunder of natural resources has ceased. If anything, the despoliation has accelerated.
In fact, the lands of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have long produced great treasures of foods, minerals and other natural resources. That is why the Europeans went through all the trouble to steal and plunder them. One does not go to poor places for self-enrichment. The Third World is rich. Only its people are poor—and it is because of the pillage they have endured.
Historically U.S. capitalist interests have been less interested in acquiring more colonies than in acquiring more wealth, preferring to make off with the treasure of other nations without bothering to own and administer the nations themselves. Under neoimperialism, the flag stays home, while the dollar goes everywhere—frequently assisted by the sword.
“the soldiers in their beds at night they become what they truly are: frightened, lonely *kids*.”
Probably there is no point in us discussing this further, but there is simply no way I’m going to see Shalit as any kind of victim. Provided he is being treated humanely by his captors – and we have no reason to believe otherwise – he is utterly undeserving of my sympathy. He knowingly joined an army of occupation, and – apparantly willingly – served in a unit which had committed several atrocities against civilians. There is no record of him ever being remotely troubled by the atrocities of the army he served in, and no reason to believe he did not personally witness – or even participate in – such atrocities himself. You may see the tank gunner as a ‘scared kid’. I see him as a POW, and as such his capture and detention are both morally and legally legitimate.
B’Tselem comments upon the use of persons (I don’t have the original document, but I suppose it means civilians). Prisoner exchanges are as old as war itself.
Also, what sort of moral victory will Israel win at this stage of things if Hamas (and I still wonder if Hamas was just given the hot potato once the coalition decided it was too difficult of an operation to carry out for a lengthy time) releases him “unconditionally”.
This is war, he was in service at the very moment of his capture. I don’t see all the shadow zones. He should be released with some conditions. It has nothing to do with non-violence, but with the realities of the condition of strategy during wartime and resistance operations.