Shalit should not be part of Gaza truce deal: Hamas

[cali]

Shalit should not be part of Gaza truce deal: Hamas
15 minutes ago

CAIRO (AFP) — Captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit should not be part of a deal to end the siege of Gaza, a Hamas leader said after talks in Cairo, where the Islamists said they were mulling an 18-month renewable truce.

Hamas leaders held talks with Egypt's intelligence chief Omar Suleiman on Sunday aimed at shoring up the ceasefire that ended 22 days of war in Gaza and opening up its borders, days after a similar visit by an Israeli envoy.

Shalit, captured by Gaza-based militants including Hamas in 2006, is "a separate issue and should be dealt with in the framework of a prisoner exchange only," Gaza-based Hamas spokesman Ayman Taha told the state MENA news agency.

"Hamas does not agree to link the release of Shalit with a truce and the lifting of the blockade."

Suleiman, Egypt's pointman for Israeli-Palestinian affairs, said that Israel had proposed an 18-month renewable truce and "we will examine the proposal in detail and respond to Egypt," Taha was quoted as saying.

An Egyptian truce plan foresees opening up Gaza crossing points that have been more or less sealed for 18 months, securing Gaza's borders to prevent weapons smuggling and reconvening Palestinian reconciliation talks.

<snip>

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5j0t8iVe-buhHf2z6du0nMSfoeOgA

[Chulanowa]

1. Hamas: "Yup, we're still dumbfucks!"

'Course, I'm not willing to place any money on Shalit still being alive, so... guess I can't blame Hamas for not wanting to include his release...

[cali]

4. I think one has to conclude that

Hamas' agenda is provocation of Israel- Palestinian civilians be damned. Not that there isn't a method to such madness. Israel falls for it each and every time, and Hamas not only gathers support from the citizenry, but support from the outside world, sympathy for the Gazan people, and repugnance toward Israel. It's a long range strategy, and it's not really stupid at all. It's just immoral and utterly ruthless.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

7. If moral means to resisting occupation fail (as they did) do you guys

believe the most moral course would be for Palestinians to live indefinitely as stateless refugees and/or colonized people?


I'm really curious about your take on this.

(FWIW, I believe that it is necessary to push for international BDS... but ultimately, I don't think that will ever happen.)

[cali]

8. First of all, I'm not some collective "you guys" I speak only for myself. Period.

In the future, I'd appreciate it if you recognized that fact. And when did the Palestinians adhere only to moral means of resistance? I was in Munich in 1972 at the Olympics. That was not a moral act of resistance. I prefer not to create myths about either the Palestinians or the Israelis.

And I've repeatedly said to you that I want to see a Palestinian state. I've explained to you over and over- and quite recently too, what steps I think Israel has to take for that to be accomplished. And I've explained that I think it's largely up to Israel as the occupier to take the needed steps toward peace and a two state solution.

Now why not address what I actually wrote?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

11. Cali, in no way am I trying to trap

or attack you, or do anything negative. Your views are quite strong and consistent. Ever the optimist, I am genuinely curious and I am simply asking a different question of you. By "you guys" I am referring to a POV that believes in changing hearts and minds to achieve 2 states... among other things.

I am simply asking: if peaceful means don't lead to a state, do you consider ongoing status quo an acceptable outcome?

It's clear you have no interest in discussion with me, so I will leave you be and not direct questions your way in the future.

[cali]

12. I hope you continue to ask me questions. I like being challenged

No, I don't consider the status quo acceptable. But neither do I see violent resistance that targets civilians as being an instrument that will achieve anything positive for the Palestinian people. And as I've said, I think the root cause of the mess, is the occupation itself and the settlements. What's the answer then? I don't know. I do think Israel and others should talk to Hamas. What do they have to lose? I can't see that they have anything at all to lose by talking to them.

[pelsar]

16. i disagree....

whereas i see the settlements as an obstacle, i dont see them as the root cause......i believe the root cause is a strange combination of various reasons all combining together that is placing fanatical theocratic islamics together with far right conservatives and left wing activists and parts of the UN, working with dictators of the worst sort all ganging up on israel.

someplace in that mess, where the Palestinians are nothing more than mere pawns lies the problem.....unless they throw off that yoke that is strangling them, there is little chance of them making peace with what they have (as it shrinks....) and peace with israel.

and no i'm not going to claim israel is nothing more than an innocent victim here....but i do believe that "ganging up" is what puts israelis on the defensive/offensive.

[Vegasaurus]

10. Hamas's treatment of its citizens

ie using them as collateral (who cares how many die in wars that they have provoked) is why they are not fit to govern a people.

Even if Israel makes concessions and efforts for peace with Hamas, the innocent Palestinians will continue to suffer from militants' immoral and ruthless political goals.

[Chulanowa]

18. So will Israeli citizens

After all, Israel profits both in terms of propaganda and money when the rockets rain down on Sderot, and it can deny its own use of human shields when it parks its artillery in the middle of the kibbutz by saying "we're defending it!"

[Chulanowa]

17. So basically the Arab version of the "Elders of Zion" conspiracy?

No. Hamas isn't provoking here. They're simply not agreeing to a demand made by Israel. I think it's dumb that they're deciding to do that, but I figure the reason is that Shalit is dead, not for any tactical reason. They'll try to reach some agreement without his release... and then look for something to gain from releasing his body. Frankly I think if he survived the recent war while in Hamas' hands, that's going to big big points in Hamas' favor, and I can't see why they wouldn't parade him around. But htey're not, so I presume he's dead.

Israel doesn't need Hamas' propaganda to look repugnant. It behaves like every other puppet state does.

[cali]

21. lol yeah, that's it. I'm slandering hamas with an accusation

akin to the Elders of Zion calumny. How absurd. Of course Hamas provokes. What do you think the rocket fire is?

And by the way, genius, I didn't slur a people, the way the Elders does. I commented on a political group. If you try really, really hard to engage your brain, I'm sure you'll see the difference. Or not. And it wasn't even a slur. It was an observation about the tactics of said political group- which I actually think, given the context, is pretty smart.

Oh, and what does puppet state even mean?

Lastly, yes Israel does just fine looking repugnant re the occupation and the recent attack, but that has zip all to do with the points I was making.

[Chulanowa]

23. I think the rocket fire was done by Hamas' political rivals

And was sharply dropping off immediately after the June 19 agreement due to Hamas going aftr said rocketeers. Atually, I don't think, I know. You might want to abandon the "OMG TEH ROKKITS!" argument, because it doesn't work.

And no, I suppose you didn't. My apologies - your deep-rooted, far-branching conspiracy theory of Hamas' deep dark plans in fact does not denigrate Arabs, it's just another silly conspiracy theory.

Puppet state? That's a state that a larger power uses to stage proxy wars. Much as how North Korea was for China, and how Iraq was for the US. Israel is a pawn for the US in the region. At least until the smell gets too bad and we ditch them for a new "ally" in the region.

[pelsar]

45. you might want to drop the...

done by the "political rivals argument...it falls flat in the face of facts and responsibilities: during the israeli pullout not a single mortar, kassam, bullet was fired... as per one example. More so hamas is responsible, if they go in for an agreement the old arafat trick (that still works btw on all of the useful idiots)...isnt viable. Thats the one where they claim a 'cease fire" or whatever and wink so that the others can still shoot, as in islamic jihad..and then when israel shoots back, they get to scream with their cheerleaders that israel broke the agreement.

amazing how it still works after all these years.

[Chulanowa]

46. That doesn't even make any sense

Your argument is that Hamas was giving the thumbs-up to continue rocket attacks... by the people it had just been in a civil war with after they tried a series of assassinations against Hamas in order to stage a coup?

Even if that made a lick of sense, it wouldn't explain the sharp and steady decline of rocket attacks into Israel between June 19 and Nov. 4, or why Hamas went after them when they shot those.

Your argument is ridiculous, your syntax is atrocious, and your examples are vacuous. I award you no points.

[pelsar]

48. my argument is based on history...sorry if you dont like it

if hamas enters a cease fire, then they are responsible for all the shooting out of their territory - anyways it wasnt a cease fire- pre gaza war, as they themselves explained many times.....

[Shaktimaan]

49. Actually, it makes perfect sense. It's been a popular tactic in the past.

Such as when it was used by the PLO during their halcyon days of using Lebanon as a staging area for attacks on Israel.

The fact of the matter is that if Hamas truly wanted the rockets or mortars to cease entirely then they would have. They have in the past, after all. The steady decline is itself evidence of this fact. Why was it so easy to completely stop the rockets for months on end in 2005 but not now? Are we to believe that Hamas was able to stop all of the rockets except for only one or two a week, which they had no way of stopping?

Hamas detained a few people who shot Qassams during this period, but they didn't hold any of them. They were arrested and then released. Again, if Hamas was truly serious about making sure that no rockets were being fired then this sort of behavior would seem counterproductive, to say the least.

[cali]

47. ridiculous. Israel isn't controlled by the U.S. anymore than the U.S.

is controlled by Israel. Yes, there's a symbiotic relationship, but that's not the same thing.

[Chulanowa]

50. I didn't say "controlled by." I said "a pawn of"

No, the US does not exert absolute authority over Israel. Just like the US did not exert absolute authority over Iraq in the 80's, and does not currently exert absolute authority over Colombia.

However all these states are under heavy pressure from the US to toe the US line and be good "useful idiots" as the saying goes.

I believe the official term is "strategic ally in the region"

[ProgressiveMuslim]

2. I wonder if he survived the carnage? nt

[cali]

3. I doubt he's been alive for some time prior to the attack.

I think it's likely that he died far before the attack on Gaza. That's been the fate of most captured Israeli soldiers. It's unlikely Shalit was an exception.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. I don't recall Palestinians capturing that many soldiers.

He's quite a valuable commodity in that regard. I would think he's alive.

[oberliner]

9. What I Learned as a Captured Israeli Soldier (Nachum Nesher)

I had received training on how to withstand abuse. It's not about the pain or physical torture. In training, you can't induce the fear of the unknown — you always know the exercise will end and you'll go home. The worst thing for us would have been to lose the sensation for life. I thought I would end up like Eli Cohen, hanging in the city square. You lose faith in reality. You can train people to survive the pain but not the unknown.

Since us three were a part of the Israeli secret service, the Syrians were worried about the possibility of a rescue mission. We were not considered POWs at first and did not have the same rights as civilians. The only time I had a visit from a Red Cross representative was 24 hours before my release.

On the morning of June 28, 1984, my captors came to shave me and take my picture. The three of us were brought together and we met a representative from Switzerland. We didn't believe him when he said that we, along with the other three soldiers, were being exchanged for 350 Syrian prisoners. We were so frightened.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1223048,00.html

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Hamas and Hezbollah have not followed that protocl. We also know that the other two died very early

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. No proof of life for quite some time. Hamas claimed he was wounded in the air strikes

[EFerrari]

20. I've had the same thought. Who could guarantee his safety in THAT.

[Ian David]

5. If not Shalit, than what about Ebert or Roper? n/t

[Ken Burch]

13. If it WAS Gene Shalit, I don't think even the IDF would mind that he's a hostage.

n/t.

[Idealism]

19. Lets try to write this equation using simple math to understand it!

12,000 Palestinians locked away in Israeli jails as political prisoners= 1 Israeli locked in a Gazan jail.

I doubt Hamas will give him up while that many Palestinians rot in Israeli jails

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Lets start with proof of life first, maybe even a visit from the IRC

[Idealism]

24. True, who knows what happened to him?

If he was being held in a known Hamas facility, he would be in grave danger, as the IAF made a priority to bomb every building associated with Hamas.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. There was a claim early during the air strikes that he had been wounded

but without recent proof of like, why would anyone believe Hamas on this.

[Idealism]

27. True, they may have said this just to deter the IAF from bombing

for fear of hurting or killing Shalit. It is a tactic that I think everyone would try in their position to get even temporary relief from the bombs.

[Alamuti Lotus]

28. Slight nitpicking, however

Shalit is not a Hamas prisoner, but has been a 'guest' of the Kitaeb as-Salahuddin -- military arm of the Popular Resistance Committees, the umbrella group of largely ex-Fatah fighters (primarily Tanzim, ironically the force that Arafat assembled after the Oslo debacle in order to fight Hamas) and other resistance factions that later allied with Nasrallah after Hizbu'llah's victory in 2006. There were early reports of his compound being hit, and possibly himself being harmed/killed in the process, but PRC quietly denied this and there has been no mention since.

[Idealism]

30. You would think that Israel would be more interested in him

But then again, when has the Israeli government ever been concerned about anyone but themselves.

[Alamuti Lotus]

34. I don't know about that..

They have been known to trade much for one of their fallen, for example reference the exchange Nasrallah forced upon them for the two soldiers captured in the raid to support Gaza in 2006. They even freed Samir Quntar, whose story had been so mutilated and propagandized in Israeli government press as to have been considered a red line never to be crossed.. and yet, he was released as part of the exchange for bodies (contrary to Israeli propagandists, they were not killed in captivity, but unintentionally died of wounds from the battle that saw their capture). The relative inaction on Shalit is curious, possibly reflecting a serious lack of any concrete information on his status. :shrug:

[Idealism]

36. It is an intriguing situation

Like whispers of Castro's death: some welcome it, others mourn? :shrug:

[azurnoir]

37. It may also be something else

I have long felt that the right wing in Israel would much prefer his mutilated corpse to his safe return, and considering the bad PR Israel is experiencing right now this kids death could go along way.

[Idealism]

39. Morals aside, there is political use for such a thing, of course

but in this case I believe this hypothetical has outlived its usefulness in that regard. If they needed more of a pretext to invade than "ze rockets, ze rockets!" then I could see the utility in what you are suggesting.

Although, perhaps there is an Operation Cast Lead II that uses Shalit's "mistreatment" to justify itself in the near-distant future. Check back February 10th, by then we will know.

[azurnoir]

41. No right now it could be used to

justify some of what happened in Cast Lead I

[Idealism]

43. I doubt even their PR could make that small vindication matter

after millions in the world have seen the destruction Israel has wrought unto the population. In my opinion, that would make Israel appear even more callous to Palestinian deaths, to parade around one of their dead soldiers in an attempt to justify the collective punishment of 1.5 million and the deaths of 1300+ of those imprisoned.

[azurnoir]

44. About Ountar

is there any other version of the story available online? I have searched and it does not seem so even going as far as Moqavemat but nothing nada what has struck me is that he was 16 at the time of the murders, not saying he's innocent but there are two sides to every story

[Shaktimaan]

29. Question...

You refer to all of the Palestinians in Israeli jails as "political prisoners." What's your definition of political prisoner, and how/why do you think that it applies to all of these people?

I ask because I don't think that most of them would fit within the commonly held meaning of the word. I'm curious to get your POV.

[Idealism]

31. Many of them were imprisoned without proof or trial

Administrative detention is the word they use to describe this condition. Those held in this manner are not allowed a lawyer and thus rejected their due process, and can't appeal their condition because they haven't been tried (usually due to lack of evidence for a conviction). This administrative detention, believe it or not, is legal under international humanitarian law, if rigidly followed to prevent abuse of power (yeah... kind of laughable).

According to http://www.btselem.org/english/Administrative_Detention/Statistics.asp">B'Tselem, in December of 2008, there were 546 Palestinians being held in Administrative detention (down from a high of 858 held in November, 2007).

The http://www.dci-pal.org/english/publ/display.cfm?DocId=725&CategoryId=8">Defense for Children International- Palestine Section says this about children being detained:

At any given point during 2007, there were between 310 and 416 Palestinian children (under the age of 18) held in Israeli prisons and detention centres in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

In 2007, some 700 Palestinian children were arrested in the West Bank by Israeli soldiers. Of these, around 30 are being held in administrative detention

According to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), this detainment of children is unlawful (Article 37b)

There are 1500 Military orders that are enforced (by Martial Law) in the West Bank by Israeli soldiers. One such order says that the "maximum sentence that can be served for a Palestinian, including a child, for throwing stones" is 20 years in jail. (Military Order 378- Article 52(A3))

According to B'Tselem, there are close to 8,000 Palestinians being held prisoner by Israel as of December, 2008. Much of them were convicted on dubious charges of "collaboration" and suspected terrorist links, although little proof exists. There are, for sure, some who have indeed committed despicable acts and deserved to be jailed, but I according to the sites that I have read on the matter, they are not the majority of those being detained. Thus, they are political prisoners.

[Shaktimaan]

32. I had a feeling that

administrative dentention played a role in your POV, but I'm still confused as to why you consider them "political prisoners" exactly. As opposed to "unjustly imprisoned" or something like that.

[Idealism]

35. Perhaps I should have reworded that statement

Obviously they aren't all political prisoners, some are undoubtedly criminals and deserve imprisonment.
But if you look at the numbers of those detained, they peak shortly after Hamas was elected in Gaza (even though most of the Palestinians imprisoned are arrested in the West Bank). Many observers have said that Israel has tried to "punish" the Palestinians for their electing Hamas with various tools. Economic sanctions was the predominant choice of Israel, but also they arrested Palestinians in droves who had suspected ties to Hamas. They also chose to arrest as many Hamas-backed politicians as they could who won elections in 2006.

These accusations were good enough to even garner convictions in about half of the cases, because the Military judges who oversaw the cases that did go to trial wanted nothing more than to take potential terrorists off the streets and throw them behind bars. It is infinitely easier to convict prisoners when you have Martial Law declared and you dictate what an entire society can and can't do by Military decrees.

The figures I cited before were very conservative estimates, I could have used the http://www.palestinemonitor.org/spip/IMG/pdf/Prisoners.pdf">Palestinian Authority's numbers, but they of course can be prone to exaggeration, so I chose not to. I personally trust B'Tselem more than the PA, especially on human rights issues. They have some interesting claims to them, though, so the report is worth a mention:

There are currently 9750 prisoners being held in Israeli jails. Of those, 8030 are from the West Bank, 920 from the Gaza Strip, while the remaining 800 are from Jerusalem: Palestinians with Israeli citizenship and from several Arab countries.

49 of those kidnapped by the Israelis are Palestinian law makers who won the January 2006 Parliamentary elections.

Of the 9750 Prisoners recorded, 9230 were abducted by the Israeli army since year 2000, 350 were kidnapped before the Israeli Palestinian Peace deal of 1994, and 170 Prisoners were taken by the Israeli army between the years of 1994 to 2000.

According to the report, 4505 (46.2%) were sent to court, 4145 (42.5%) were detained without a trial, 1100 (11.3%) were kept under administrative detention, held without charges or court. -- B'Tselem report puts this number at little over 500 in AD

[Shaktimaan]

40. OK, I think I understand.

"Political prisoner" usually refers to someone who's been wrongly imprisoned because of their political beliefs, not because they're deemed to pose a genuine threat, (even if the evidence against them is slim to none.) People I think of who fulfill the definition would be Hun Sen's political opponents (in Cambodia), Aung San Suu Kyi in Myanmar or anti-Communist bloggers in China. I'm sure that Israel has at least a few prisoners who meet this definition, like Palestinian activists or something similar, but in general this isn't what you're talking about, right?

Your problem with these prisoners is primarily that they've mostly been imprisoned without Israel meeting a certain standard of due process, not that the motivation behind their imprisonment is politically motivated.

I consider B'tselem to be one of the most credible peace organizations out there in regards to the accuracy of their information. Certainly moreso than the PA, especially considering that the information quoted here isn't even entirely correct. For example, everyone detained for more than a few days gets their case brought before a court. For administrative detainees it's only military court and they probably don't get a lawyer, but it isn't like there aren't any rules or oversight at all.

[Idealism]

42. Quite right

It perhaps doesn't fit the literal definition of "political prisoner" (as in the examples you named), but there does seem to be a correlation between the rise in Palestinians imprisoned and the time of the Parliamentary elections in '06. Couple that with Palestinian candidates being imprisoned, there are possible grounds for at least a more debased definition of a "political prisoner."

I could see how people who perhaps supported (as in voted for) a Hamas candidate could be considered a political prisoner. Israel labels Hamas a terrorist organization, but they are also a political reform movement, as you know. So, I guess it comes down to what you support, terrorist activity or their socialist governing, that depends if you are indeed a political prisoner? Interesting thought before bed, good night.

[Alamuti Lotus]

26. This is a very simple concept here

They're saying Shalit is not a bargaining chip in exchange for the ending of the criminal blockade (itself a completely reasonable causis belli for war in any decent society -- or even, Israel), rather the blockade's end is a jumping off point for any negotiation, including anything regarding Shalit and Palestinian figures kidnapped by Israeli occupation forces. There are not any difficult concepts at work here, folks.

[IndianaGreen]

33. Shalit is dead!

Hizbollah played the same sick game with Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, yet they were killed either during or shortly after their capture. Taking hostages does not advance anyone's cause.

Gilad Shalit was 19 years old when captured, not much older than the GIs serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. :-(

[azurnoir]

38. I have to disagree the sick game was played by the Israeli

government who pretended that Goldwasser and Regev might still be alive till the end, if Mossad is anywhere as good as it's reputation the Israeli government knew they dead long before the prisoner exchange

[pelsar]

51. so now its the mossads fault?

hizbballa takes two israeli soldiers, doesnt say if the are dead or alive, the israel has conflicting info but no proof of either.....and its israels fault or not knowing?

my my that ability to blame israel never ceases to amaze me.......i 'm realizing that is seems in your view israelis are some kind of supermen...all knowing (the mossad) perfect judgement on the battlefield (all mistakes are on purpose) and the ability to read the future......