Does Hamas kidnap Israeli soldiers?

[Jayjay]

So Hamas has a blank cheque to do whatevery they want?

Hamas militant want a lollipop, and steals it from a baby. It's fine, becasue of oppression!

Hamas militant needs a new car, so he just takes one from his neighbour at gunpoint. Fighting oppression, nothing to see here!

Hamas militant is feeling horny, so he rapes a random woman on the street. Oppression!

This is of course insane. While war is something of a breakdown of social order, there are some things that can be morally justified by fighting said oppression, and some things that can't.

If you lived in a place where some outside nation was oppressing you and everyone you knew, what exactly would you be allowed to do to stop it?

And what if that oppressive nation was also slowly taking land that rightfully belonged to you?

Could you resort to violent resistance if the oppression and theft lasted decades?

What exactly would you do? Lay down like a dog and take it?

Me personally? Yes, absolutely. I'm a lover, not a fighter.

I also think that people do have the right to resist (or not resist). But there have to be limits, or otherwise you can justify pretty much any atrocity under the guise of "resistance". The main criteria is that ilegitimate resistance always targets the source of oppression, not random civilians (for example, relatives or friends of kidnapped soldiers). It's analogous to war, where the idea is that you can fight back to defend yourself against an enemy, and whatever violence you commit is judged against how it aligns with that goal.

Taking hostages does nothing to stop the oppression. It's a form of collective punishment, that harms people who are not directly involved. The ICRC commentary to the Geneva convention does in fact couple the hostage-taking with collective punishments, and that should not be acceptable whether you are in regular war or resisting an occupation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Taking them prisoner for the purpose of exchanging is hostage taking and thus wrong.

This isn't war.

This is an extremely powerful nation oppressing and stealing from a very weak mostly civilian population.

The rules of war do not apply to those fighting the shackles of oppression.

The rules of war apply to everyone.

And strong vs weak does nothing about proving who is right or wrong.

Or do you support serial killers over cops?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you have any case where Israel has deliberately killed someone who was not engaged in hostilities? Not by accident, or as collateral damage, and provably so? Certainly, that would be illegal.

Something to keep in mind with this challenge:

Hamas likes to probe the border with unarmed teens. (AFIAK it's never been resolved if they are volunteers or under duress.) If they get through Hamas will follow. If Israel stops them we get another case of "innocent kid" dying near the border fence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There has been some attempts to muddy the waters by pretending they're just taking prisoners of war.

They admit the objective is kidnapping:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvF_il0WFXk

(Yes, this is about their tunnels, not kidnapping. The relevant bit is they said they used the tunnels to kidnap an IDF solider.)

So, wait. What exactly do you think is the difference between kidnapping and capturing a prisoner of war?

The objective.

Capture to keep them off the battlefield: Legal.
Capture to obtain information (deception is permitted but force is not): Legal.
Capture for the purpose of prisoner exchange: Not legal.

Furthermore, by your own arguments in the past, aren't the Palestinians justified in capturing Israeli soldiers because Israeli soldiers have killed Palestinian civilians in the past? Or does that line of argument only work when we apply the logic to certain conclusions but not others?

I'm not saying it's illegal for the Palestinians to attack Israeli soldiers. That's what happens in war.

 

[The Paul]

Do you have any case where Israel has deliberately killed someone who was not engaged in hostilities? Not by accident, or as collateral damage, and provably so? Certainly, that would be illegal.

Something to keep in mind with this challenge:

Hamas likes to probe the border with unarmed teens. (AFIAK it's never been resolved if they are volunteers or under duress.) If they get through Hamas will follow. If Israel stops them we get another case of "innocent kid" dying near the border fence.

I don't I've ever encountered any other person on any forum or online community that I've noticed to have a pattern of typing things like "innocent kid" with the quotes on it like that.

This habitually making excuses for the murder of kids is not a normal thing.

I mean, I know Derec does it too, but his form is different.

 

[Togo]

Do you have any case where Israel has deliberately killed someone who was not engaged in hostilities? Not by accident, or as collateral damage, and provably so? Certainly, that would be illegal.

Sure. Operation Cast Lead started off with a surprise coordinated missle strike on Palestinians police stations in Gaza at 3am (may have been 2am). 400 people died, mostly policemen.

Israel claimed that anyone who had a gun and was employed by Hamas was a legitimate target. Policemen, as government employees, could thus be shot at will.

Or there is the practice of shooting anyone who comes within 200-1000m of the border fence. Some of those people have died.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There has been some attempts to muddy the waters by pretending they're just taking prisoners of war.

They admit the objective is kidnapping:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvF_il0WFXk

(Yes, this is about their tunnels, not kidnapping. The relevant bit is they said they used the tunnels to kidnap an IDF solider.)

I don't think there is any dispute regarding kidnapping. These soldiers can be swapped for prisoners seized by the Israelis several years ago.
If you kidnap an enemy soldier you are still taking a prisoner of war and for sure nobody gives a rat's bottom about the framework of the Geneva Convention.
However this is a controversial subject with different opinions. Here is one blog which is one person's opinion which may differ from yours.:

http://www.legalfrontiers.ca/2011/04/is-it-ever-legal-to-kidnap-your-enemies/

The Israelis do have a right to live in Israel but should consider defined borders without building settlements. Palestinians also have the right to a free state. The issue of territory was complicated by the Israeli colonization of the West Bank, and formally Gaza (which they pulled out of). As far as Gaza is concerned, taking land from the West Bank is still taking land from Palestine. Ironically, in a peaceful situation, Israelis would simply buy land on the West Bank and even Gaza. Even if Israel subsidized such purchases, it would be a lot cheaper than armed conflict.
If there was peace in the in the Palestine/Israel region, there would be a huge source of IT, engineering, technology, Management skills and other contributions to the rest of the Middle East. Then tourism would boom beyond and house prices would rocket as wealthy Arabs, Jews and Christian build retirement homes.

 

[The Paul]

The rules of war apply to everyone.

It's really easy to say that, isn't it?

But the fact of the matter is that when you're on the receiving end of a slow-motion genocide, and it's being allowed by the rules of war, there aren't actually any such things as the rules of war.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So, wait. What exactly do you think is the difference between kidnapping and capturing a prisoner of war?

The objective.

Capture to keep them off the battlefield: Legal.
Capture to obtain information (deception is permitted but force is not): Legal.
Capture for the purpose of prisoner exchange: Not legal.

Furthermore, by your own arguments in the past, aren't the Palestinians justified in capturing Israeli soldiers because Israeli soldiers have killed Palestinian civilians in the past? Or does that line of argument only work when we apply the logic to certain conclusions but not others?

I'm not saying it's illegal for the Palestinians to attack Israeli soldiers. That's what happens in war.

Nonetheless the parties exchange do prisoners.

 

[Jayjay]

Do you have any case where Israel has deliberately killed someone who was not engaged in hostilities? Not by accident, or as collateral damage, and provably so? Certainly, that would be illegal.

Sure. Operation Cast Lead started off with a surprise coordinated missle strike on Palestinians police stations in Gaza at 3am (may have been 2am). 400 people died, mostly policemen.

Israel claimed that anyone who had a gun and was employed by Hamas was a legitimate target. Policemen, as government employees, could thus be shot at will.

Or there is the practice of shooting anyone who comes within 200-1000m of the border fence. Some of those people have died.

Ok, I get your point... I wasn't sure what exactly you were referring to.

Israel is indeed committing war crimes by targeting civilians, and that should be condemned. Just like Hamas's hostage taking tactics should be condemned as war crimes.

 

[Underseer]

Sure. Operation Cast Lead started off with a surprise coordinated missle strike on Palestinians police stations in Gaza at 3am (may have been 2am). 400 people died, mostly policemen.

Israel claimed that anyone who had a gun and was employed by Hamas was a legitimate target. Policemen, as government employees, could thus be shot at will.

Or there is the practice of shooting anyone who comes within 200-1000m of the border fence. Some of those people have died.

Ok, I get your point... I wasn't sure what exactly you were referring to.

Israel is indeed committing war crimes by targeting civilians, and that should be condemned. Just like Hamas's hostage taking tactics should be condemned as war crimes.

Anti-semite! You're no different from a Nazi! It doesn't count as a war crime if it's Palestinians who die. If you weren't such a hateful bigot, you would understand that! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[Togo]

Sure. Operation Cast Lead started off with a surprise coordinated missle strike on Palestinians police stations in Gaza at 3am (may have been 2am). 400 people died, mostly policemen.

Israel claimed that anyone who had a gun and was employed by Hamas was a legitimate target. Policemen, as government employees, could thus be shot at will.

Or there is the practice of shooting anyone who comes within 200-1000m of the border fence. Some of those people have died.

Ok, I get your point... I wasn't sure what exactly you were referring to.

Israel is indeed committing war crimes by targeting civilians, and that should be condemned. Just like Hamas's hostage taking tactics should be condemned as war crimes.

Ok, so can you explain your point? The IDF capture Hamas fighters, and hold them prisoner. They are later exchanged for the release of Israeli soldiers who have been captured. Hamas captures Israeli soliders, and hold them prisoner. They are later exhcanged for the release of Hamas fighters.

What makes one a hostage, and not the other? I feel like I'm missing something obvious.

 

[Jayjay]

Ok, I get your point... I wasn't sure what exactly you were referring to.

Israel is indeed committing war crimes by targeting civilians, and that should be condemned. Just like Hamas's hostage taking tactics should be condemned as war crimes.

Ok, so can you explain your point? The IDF capture Hamas fighters, and hold them prisoner. They are later exchanged for the release of Israeli soldiers who have been captured. Hamas captures Israeli soliders, and hold them prisoner. They are later exhcanged for the release of Hamas fighters.

What makes one a hostage, and not the other? I feel like I'm missing something obvious.

Loren already explained it. Israel does not imprison Palestinians to use them as hostages, but for other reasons. While a case can be made against lengthy administrative detentions, most of the people that Hamas wants released have had a trial and are locked up for a good reason.

Hamas, on the other hand, takes prisoners only to be used as hostages. They conduct entire operations for no other purpose than to capture someone... soldier or civilian. This serves no purpose other than to release Hamas big wigs from jail, and is not justified by legitimate resistance.

 

[untermensche]

This is all bullshit.

All it is is the difference between a very rich and very well armed nation and a very poor imprisoned people.

Yes the rich nation can say it is taking POW's. And it has the propaganda machine to make the lie plausible. And it has the wealth to lock up people without any charges indefinitely.

What we have here is a rich nation telling a poor people they are not allowed to fight back. Resistance to oppression is a crime.

The same way the powerful have acted for all of history.

 

[Togo]

Ok, so can you explain your point? The IDF capture Hamas fighters, and hold them prisoner. They are later exchanged for the release of Israeli soldiers who have been captured. Hamas captures Israeli soliders, and hold them prisoner. They are later exhcanged for the release of Hamas fighters.

What makes one a hostage, and not the other? I feel like I'm missing something obvious.

Loren already explained it. Israel does not imprison Palestinians to use them as hostages, but for other reasons. While a case can be made against lengthy administrative detentions, most of the people that Hamas wants released have had a trial and are locked up for a good reason.

Hamas, on the other hand, takes prisoners only to be used as hostages. They conduct entire operations for no other purpose than to capture someone... soldier or civilian. This serves no purpose other than to release Hamas big wigs from jail, and is not justified by legitimate resistance.

Well, let's seperate the two. I've only heard of soldiers being kidnapped, so let's stick to that for the moment. You have a solider, armed, stationed on your land, ready to shoot at you, but you're saying that's not a good reason to take him prisoner? I'm not seeing that there's a difference in kind between IDF fighters in Hamas hands, and Hamas fighters in Israeli hands.

Granted there may be a difference in motive, but that's pure speculation on your part, isn't it? I would have thought it's far more likely that soldiers are captured because it's a propaganda coup, and because it demoralises the enemy - captured soliders feature on TV. That's presumably also why the IDF capture Hamas soldiers. Sure they get traded back again, but I can't help thinking that's far better, on both sides, then declaring it's a war crime because you didn't just shoot them.

 

[Jayjay]

This is all bullshit.

All it is is the difference between a very rich and very well armed nation and a very poor imprisoned people.

Yes the rich nation can say it is taking POW's. And it has the propaganda machine to make the lie plausible. And it has the wealth to lock up people without any charges indefinitely.

What we have here is a rich nation telling a poor people they are not allowed to fight back. Resistance to oppression is a crime.

The same way the powerful have acted for all of history.

Taking hostages to get your own buddies out of jail is not "resistance to oppression". Some of them might be in said jail because they were resisting oppression, but that's the price you have to pay for resisting.

 

[Jayjay]

Loren already explained it. Israel does not imprison Palestinians to use them as hostages, but for other reasons. While a case can be made against lengthy administrative detentions, most of the people that Hamas wants released have had a trial and are locked up for a good reason.

Hamas, on the other hand, takes prisoners only to be used as hostages. They conduct entire operations for no other purpose than to capture someone... soldier or civilian. This serves no purpose other than to release Hamas big wigs from jail, and is not justified by legitimate resistance.

Well, let's seperate the two. I've only heard of soldiers being kidnapped, so let's stick to that for the moment. You have a solider, armed, stationed on your land, ready to shoot at you, but you're saying that's not a good reason to take him prisoner?

There is nothign wrong with taking prisoners. Using prisoners as hostages is what makes it bad.

But anyway look at the circumstances. Gilad Shalit was stationed in a military base, and Hamas killed other crew members of the Merkava tank he was in. There was no military reason to take him prisoner, and no good reason to even attack the base except that it was a military target.

I'm not seeing that there's a difference in kind between IDF fighters in Hamas hands, and Hamas fighters in Israeli hands.

Israel usually will have trial and sentencing for Hamas fighters it captures. They have access to medical care, lawyers and human rights groups, and can communicate with outside world. Their return is not conditional on some self-serving threats or demands made by Israeli government.

Granted there may be a difference in motive, but that's pure speculation on your part, isn't it? I would have thought it's far more likely that soldiers are captured because it's a propaganda coup, and because it demoralises the enemy - captured soliders feature on TV. That's presumably also why the IDF capture Hamas soldiers. Sure they get traded back again, but I can't help thinking that's far better, on both sides, then declaring it's a war crime because you didn't just shoot them.

It may be speculation, but I think it quite likely that the intent was to kidnap and use them as hostages. The precedent of successful prisoner swap of Gilad Shalit, as well as Hezbollah managing to exchange dead body parts for release of Samir Kuntar, shows that Israel is willing to do such deals. On the other hand, Hamas is not known to take a single captive for anything that did not result in a prisoner swap or had anything resembling a trial.

It is somewhat counter-intuitive that shooting someone might not be a war crime, but taking them prisoner and using them as hostages is. But consider this: when you shoot someone, there is closure. The victim's relatives would grieve of course but at least they can move on and are not kept worrying for years and years about whether there is going to be a prisoner swap or not. And on the other side, when there is a kidnapping, you are going to have to expect harsh reprisals from the other party. The kidnapping of the three Jewish kids resulted in a massive search operation with six dead Palestinians... this would be a hugely disproportional reaction to a mere murder, but for a kidnapping this is all justified because there is still hope of retrieving the victims. Had the Hamas people merely shot the kids on site would have meant A) equally strong deterrent for settlers to move around occupied areas, and B) spared the lives of at least 6 Palestinians.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Something to keep in mind with this challenge:

Hamas likes to probe the border with unarmed teens. (AFIAK it's never been resolved if they are volunteers or under duress.) If they get through Hamas will follow. If Israel stops them we get another case of "innocent kid" dying near the border fence.

I don't I've ever encountered any other person on any forum or online community that I've noticed to have a pattern of typing things like "innocent kid" with the quotes on it like that.

This habitually making excuses for the murder of kids is not a normal thing.

I mean, I know Derec does it too, but his form is different.

The point is they are engaged in armed conflict even though they carry no arms themselves. They're far from innocent.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you have any case where Israel has deliberately killed someone who was not engaged in hostilities? Not by accident, or as collateral damage, and provably so? Certainly, that would be illegal.

Sure. Operation Cast Lead started off with a surprise coordinated missle strike on Palestinians police stations in Gaza at 3am (may have been 2am). 400 people died, mostly policemen.

Israel claimed that anyone who had a gun and was employed by Hamas was a legitimate target. Policemen, as government employees, could thus be shot at will.

Or there is the practice of shooting anyone who comes within 200-1000m of the border fence. Some of those people have died.

It's not just employed by Hamas, but a member of a terrorist brigade.

You find the guy's name on a terrorist membership roster and he's almost certainly a terrorist and thus a valid target.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok, I get your point... I wasn't sure what exactly you were referring to.

Israel is indeed committing war crimes by targeting civilians, and that should be condemned. Just like Hamas's hostage taking tactics should be condemned as war crimes.

Ok, so can you explain your point? The IDF capture Hamas fighters, and hold them prisoner. They are later exchanged for the release of Israeli soldiers who have been captured. Hamas captures Israeli soliders, and hold them prisoner. They are later exhcanged for the release of Hamas fighters.

What makes one a hostage, and not the other? I feel like I'm missing something obvious.

Israel takes them for the purpose of getting them off the battlefield. The objective isn't exchanges and Israel doesn't like doing exchanges.

Hamas loves exchanges and tries very hard to capture people for that very reason.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, let's seperate the two. I've only heard of soldiers being kidnapped, so let's stick to that for the moment. You have a solider, armed, stationed on your land, ready to shoot at you, but you're saying that's not a good reason to take him prisoner? I'm not seeing that there's a difference in kind between IDF fighters in Hamas hands, and Hamas fighters in Israeli hands.

Remember those three teens? That was a kidnap that went bad when they realized one was using their phone.

Furthermore, there are at least 7 tunnels in the current battle area that were to be used for a mass kidnap raid in the upcoming high holidays. One of those tunnels started from that hospital that got hit recently.

Granted there may be a difference in motive, but that's pure speculation on your part, isn't it? I would have thought it's far more likely that soldiers are captured because it's a propaganda coup, and because it demoralises the enemy - captured soliders feature on TV. That's presumably also why the IDF capture Hamas soldiers. Sure they get traded back again, but I can't help thinking that's far better, on both sides, then declaring it's a war crime because you didn't just shoot them.

Are you a contortionist? You're sure bending over backwards to deny the truth here.

 

[Togo]

Yes the rich nation can say it is taking POW's. And it has the propaganda machine to make the lie plausible. And it has the wealth to lock up people without any charges indefinitely.

What we have here is a rich nation telling a poor people they are not allowed to fight back. Resistance to oppression is a crime.

Taking hostages to get your own buddies out of jail is not "resistance to oppression". Some of them might be in said jail because they were resisting oppression, but that's the price you have to pay for resisting.

Does the same hold true of Israeli soldiers being captured by Hamas? Is that the price they pay for invading Palestine? Because I'm pretty sure that when the IDF discover where one of theirs is being held, they come in with guns blazing.

How about runaway slaves? Is getting hanged the price they play for resisting? Is there a point at which resisting oppression actually becomes a praiseworthy reason for doing something?

Again, I'm curious as to why there are two standards operating here. What is it about the situation that leads to pronounce rules of conduct that apply to Hamas, but not to the IDF?

I don't I've ever encountered any other person on any forum or online community that I've noticed to have a pattern of typing things like "innocent kid" with the quotes on it like that.

This habitually making excuses for the murder of kids is not a normal thing.

I mean, I know Derec does it too, but his form is different.

The point is they are engaged in armed conflict even though they carry no arms themselves.

???!!!

Sorry, you've just got to explain that one to me...

Do you have any case where Israel has deliberately killed someone who was not engaged in hostilities? Not by accident, or as collateral damage, and provably so? Certainly, that would be illegal.

Sure. Operation Cast Lead started off with a surprise coordinated missle strike on Palestinians police stations in Gaza at 3am (may have been 2am). 400 people died, mostly policemen.

Israel claimed that anyone who had a gun and was employed by Hamas was a legitimate target. Policemen, as government employees, could thus be shot at will.

Or there is the practice of shooting anyone who comes within 200-1000m of the border fence. Some of those people have died.

It's not just employed by Hamas, but a member of a terrorist brigade.

They weren't members of a brigade. They were merely employees of Hamas, the government of Gaza, which Israel has declared to be a terrorist organisation. The article angelo posted makes reference to this, as did material you posted at the time.

Ok, so can you explain your point? The IDF capture Hamas fighters, and hold them prisoner. They are later exchanged for the release of Israeli soldiers who have been captured. Hamas captures Israeli soliders, and hold them prisoner. They are later exhcanged for the release of Hamas fighters.

What makes one a hostage, and not the other? I feel like I'm missing something obvious.

Israel takes them for the purpose of getting them off the battlefield. The objective isn't exchanges and Israel doesn't like doing exchanges.

So despite both sides doing the same thing with the prisoners, it's only a war crime when Hamas does it, because of what they're thinking at the time?