Does Hamas kidnap Israeli soldiers?

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

We are not using two standards. It's your side that wants that--not applying the Geneva Conventions to Hamas' actions.

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...

They're doing recon in preparation for an attack. Recon troops are combatants even if they carry no weapons themselves. After all, consider the old adage that the most dangerous weapon a soldier carries is a radio.

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.

Just because they were police doesn't mean they weren't also terrorists. Simple test: They show up on the membership lists of one of the terrorist groups, they're a terrorist.

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?

Motivation is always a big part of whether something is acceptable.

Consider:

Execution/justifiable homicide/manslaughter/murder.

The only difference is why.

 

[ZiprHead]

Just because they were police doesn't mean they weren't also terrorists. Simple test: They show up on the membership lists of one of the terrorist groups, they're a terrorist.

Quick question. Who creates these lists?

 

[Jayjay]

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?

There are no two different standards, there are two different conducts. Israel doesn't take hostages like Hamas does. But it does sometimes resort to administrative detention without a trial, or collective punishment. It is on the same level morally as well as legally (per Geneva convention), but it is still a different conduct. If we let Hamas off the hook for taking hostages, what moral standing do we have for condemning Israel for anything else?

Resistance to oppression is one thing, but it is not oppression to sentence someone based on common criminal code. If an Israeli citizen who murders someone is sentenced to life in prison (or whatever), how is it "oppression" to sentence a Hamas militant who commits the same crime? And if that is not oppression, then trying to free those guys doesn't qualify as legitimate resistance either.

 

[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.

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.

Of course it is.

You explain it yourself. If your buddies are in jail for resistance then trying to free them is a part of the overall resistance to oppression.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Just because they were police doesn't mean they weren't also terrorists. Simple test: They show up on the membership lists of one of the terrorist groups, they're a terrorist.

Quick question. Who creates these lists?

The terrorists.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Of course it is.

You explain it yourself. If your buddies are in jail for resistance then trying to free them is a part of the overall resistance to oppression.

But that doesn't justify hostage taking.

 

[untermensche]

But that doesn't justify hostage taking.

Being oppressed justifies a lot of things.

Nothing justifies the oppression.

 

[Togo]

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?

There are no two different standards, there are two different conducts. Israel doesn't take hostages like Hamas does.

The conduct is the same though. It's your belief about the motivation that's different.

When an israeli solider gets captured, and Israel starts taking a lot of Hamas people prisoner, in anticipation of a prisoner exchange, is that different again?

We can cut to the chase here - does the Geneva convention define what is meant by a hostage as opposed to a POW?

But it does sometimes resort to administrative detention without a trial, or collective punishment. It is on the same level morally as well as legally (per Geneva convention), but it is still a different conduct. If we let Hamas off the hook for taking hostages, what moral standing do we have for condemning Israel for anything else?

I'm happy enough to condemn Hamas for all sorts of stuff. I'm just not happy to call IDF prisoners POWs and Hamas prisoners hostage taking based merely on what you believe they were thinking at the time. We need an actual distinction here.

What's the definition of the terms under the Geneva convention - does anyone actually know?

Resistance to oppression is one thing, but it is not oppression to sentence someone based on common criminal code. If an Israeli citizen who murders someone is sentenced to life in prison (or whatever), how is it "oppression" to sentence a Hamas militant who commits the same crime?

If they both live in Israel, fine. If they don't, and you're 'arresting' people outside your jusridiction because you feel like it, with no right to a trial of one's peers, then it's still a problem. We went through this with the H-block regieme in Northern Ireland.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

Of course it is.

You explain it yourself. If your buddies are in jail for resistance then trying to free them is a part of the overall resistance to oppression.

Their buddies are not in jail for resisting. They are in jail for committing various crimes that anyone would be sentenced for. The fact that their motivation may have been resistance to oppression is irrelevant. Fine, I suppose there might be a roundabout way in the sense that by freeing people who are prone to violent resistance, you get more manpower for future operations, but then again, Israel could use the same reasoning to justify massive administrative detentions as it deprives Hamas from said manpower. Are you saying Israel is justified in doing so?

Resistance to oppression can never be a blank cheque to do whatever you like.

 

[Jayjay]

There are no two different standards, there are two different conducts. Israel doesn't take hostages like Hamas does.

The conduct is the same though. It's your belief about the motivation that's different.

When an israeli solider gets captured, and Israel starts taking a lot of Hamas people prisoner, in anticipation of a prisoner exchange, is that different again?

It's not, but the root cause in this case is Hamas's initial capture. I already mentioned before that nobody benefits from this kind of tit-for-tat reprisals, which is exactly why hostage taking shouldn't be a strategy in the first place for either side.

During WW2, the allied treated German prisoners with some dignity. In turn, the Germans treated the allied prisoners in kind. But on the Eastern front both sides treated their prisoners much more harshly. It pays off not to be a dick, and in this case, Hamas is being a dick.

We can cut to the chase here - does the Geneva convention define what is meant by a hostage as opposed to a POW?

I'm much more interested in the morality of it than legalistic mumbo jumbo, but the Geneva convention does not define the term "hostage", and POW itself is a concept that only applies to uniformed fighters of a regular military or equivalent, so in this case it is not relevant as Hamas fighters detained by Israel don't qualify as POWs, and Hamas doesn't follow the Geneva convention when it comes to Israeli prisoners anyway.

But it does sometimes resort to administrative detention without a trial, or collective punishment. It is on the same level morally as well as legally (per Geneva convention), but it is still a different conduct. If we let Hamas off the hook for taking hostages, what moral standing do we have for condemning Israel for anything else?

I'm happy enough to condemn Hamas for all sorts of stuff. I'm just not happy to call IDF prisoners POWs and Hamas prisoners hostage taking based merely on what you believe they were thinking at the time. We need an actual distinction here.

The distinction is between how they are treated, not the motivation. Gilad Shalit got no trial, no sentencing, and it was pretty clear from the start that Hamas was using him only to negotiate concessions from Israel. It's not as if after a few years the idea of prisoner exchange just popped out of nowhere.

Resistance to oppression is one thing, but it is not oppression to sentence someone based on common criminal code. If an Israeli citizen who murders someone is sentenced to life in prison (or whatever), how is it "oppression" to sentence a Hamas militant who commits the same crime?

If they both live in Israel, fine. If they don't, and you're 'arresting' people outside your jusridiction because you feel like it, with no right to a trial of one's peers, then it's still a problem. We went through this with the H-block regieme in Northern Ireland.

An occupier is the jurisdiction in occupied territory, and the location of the perpetrator does not matter if the crime itself was commited in Israel, e.g. firing rockets from Gaza. And jury trials are an American thing anyway.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But that doesn't justify hostage taking.

Being oppressed justifies a lot of things.

Nothing justifies the oppression.

Here we disagree.

The laws of war are basically about minimizing the harm to innocents.

Whatever is happening to you doesn't justify taking it out on innocents.

 

[SimpleDon]

Not according to the 4th Geneva convention, article 3:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

It prohibits the taking of hostages of "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities" "who have laid down their arms"

It doesn't prohibit taking prisoners of members of the military who have not laid down their arms and using them as negotiating chips.

That's the risk oppressors take when they oppress. And here we have worse than oppression we have violent attack using the military.

Do you have a special dyslexia that prevents you from comprehending entire sentences, or are you just cherry-picking the words that you agree with and ignore the rest? The entire sentence above is: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause". In that context, the term hors de combat is not a reference to the Spielberg movie, but anyone who is outside the active combat at the time. This includes prisoners of war.

If you have no problem with Hamas committing war crimes, then you have no moral standing to criticize Israel for the same.

You do realize that the 4th Geneva Convention is the one that applies to the treatment of civilians during wartime by the combatants?

Are you claiming that a member of the IDF is a civilian and not a combatant?

And they are not then subject to POW exchanges, which are clearly allowed by the Geneva Conventions?

And why do we have to pick sides in this conflict? It is kind of like arguing which is blacker, coal or soot. In the end they both are pretty dirty.

 

[laughing dog]

Being oppressed justifies a lot of things.

Nothing justifies the oppression.

Here we disagree.

The laws of war are basically about minimizing the harm to innocents.

Whatever is happening to you doesn't justify taking it out on innocents.

The irony of that statement coming from an IDF apologist is overwhelming.

 

[SimpleDon]

We are not using two standards. It's your side that wants that--not applying the Geneva Conventions to Hamas' actions.

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...

They're doing recon in preparation for an attack. Recon troops are combatants even if they carry no weapons themselves. After all, consider the old adage that the most dangerous weapon a soldier carries is a radio.

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.

Just because they were police doesn't mean they weren't also terrorists. Simple test: They show up on the membership lists of one of the terrorist groups, they're a terrorist.

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?

Motivation is always a big part of whether something is acceptable.

Consider:

Execution/justifiable homicide/manslaughter/murder.

The only difference is why.

The only Geneva Convention that has been quoted here is the 4th, which deals with the treatment of civilians by combatants. It doesn't deal with how combatants treat each other.

This is why I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that the members of Hamas are the combatants and the members of the IDF are civilians? This is a hard case to make.

The traditional problem in conflicts of this kind is to determine who is an insurgent and who is a civilian, not if a soldier of a recognized army of a nation is actually a civilian.

Is this an argument that the Israelis are making? That Hamas is illegally kidnapping IDF solders? Perhaps if you could provide some links to those arguments it would help.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not according to the 4th Geneva convention, article 3:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

It prohibits the taking of hostages of "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities" "who have laid down their arms"

It doesn't prohibit taking prisoners of members of the military who have not laid down their arms and using them as negotiating chips.

That's the risk oppressors take when they oppress. And here we have worse than oppression we have violent attack using the military.

Do you have a special dyslexia that prevents you from comprehending entire sentences, or are you just cherry-picking the words that you agree with and ignore the rest? The entire sentence above is: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause". In that context, the term hors de combat is not a reference to the Spielberg movie, but anyone who is outside the active combat at the time. This includes prisoners of war.

If you have no problem with Hamas committing war crimes, then you have no moral standing to criticize Israel for the same.

You do realize that the 4th Geneva Convention is the one that applies to the treatment of civilians during wartime by the combatants?

Are you claiming that a member of the IDF is a civilian and not a combatant?

And they are not then subject to POW exchanges, which are clearly allowed by the Geneva Conventions?

And why do we have to pick sides in this conflict? It is kind of like arguing which is blacker, coal or soot. In the end they both are pretty dirty.

Why don't you read the part he marked?

The point is that once someone is captured they're basically treated as a civilian other than you have the right to detain them for the duration of the conflict.

- - - Updated - - -

Here we disagree.

The laws of war are basically about minimizing the harm to innocents.

Whatever is happening to you doesn't justify taking it out on innocents.

The irony of that statement coming from an IDF apologist is overwhelming.

How about actually addressing the issue rather than attacking me?

 

[Jayjay]

Not according to the 4th Geneva convention, article 3:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

It prohibits the taking of hostages of "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities" "who have laid down their arms"

It doesn't prohibit taking prisoners of members of the military who have not laid down their arms and using them as negotiating chips.

That's the risk oppressors take when they oppress. And here we have worse than oppression we have violent attack using the military.

Do you have a special dyslexia that prevents you from comprehending entire sentences, or are you just cherry-picking the words that you agree with and ignore the rest? The entire sentence above is: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ' hors de combat ' by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause". In that context, the term hors de combat is not a reference to the Spielberg movie, but anyone who is outside the active combat at the time. This includes prisoners of war.

If you have no problem with Hamas committing war crimes, then you have no moral standing to criticize Israel for the same.

You do realize that the 4th Geneva Convention is the one that applies to the treatment of civilians during wartime by the combatants?

Are you claiming that a member of the IDF is a civilian and not a combatant?

And they are not then subject to POW exchanges, which are clearly allowed by the Geneva Conventions?

No. Neither the Hamas militants detained by Israel nor Israeli soldiers and civilians that have been or may be captured by Hamas are POWs. And even if you were to pretend that they were, the third Geneva convention that would be applicable doesn't really say that there have to be prisoner exchanges, only conditions under which the POWs must be repatriated and who will pay for cost of said repatriation and such. It in no way justifies deplorable acts like hostage taking, torture, summary executions or collective punishments under any excuse.

And why do we have to pick sides in this conflict? It is kind of like arguing which is blacker, coal or soot. In the end they both are pretty dirty.

Tryign to justify Hamas's hostage taking tactics as taking prisoners of war is precisely the kind of whitewashing that should be avoided. Just call spade a spade.