---

4 responses:

Joss

9th July 2010 (1:28 am)

Couldn’t he have been freed in a prisoner exchange long ago? What’s the holdup?

Citing `international law’ is a joke in the context of Israel/Palestine.

“Defensive operations” – ridiculous – you have a blind spot.

Dror K

11th July 2010 (5:52 pm)

I couldn’t agree more with what you’ve written. I can only say further that Hamas’s current demands, to the best of my very humble judgment, are way beyond Israel’s red lines. It is the dilemma of whose life we prefer – Gilad Shalit’s or those likely to be killed, severely injured or kidnapped as a result of submitting to Hamas’s demands. People around the world should realise that radical Islamist organisations have stopped acting within the red lines of what we deem conceivable. This is a dangerous development that has already reached Europe and North America and will intensify unless the public opinion turns against them.

Josh

9th August 2010 (7:24 pm)

Joss — it isn’t Chris who has a blind spot, but you. Israel is and has always been surrounded by Arab states and terror organizations that simply will not accept a Jewish state in any borders. If the Arabs had succeeded in destroying the newly reborn Jewish state in 1948, as they promised they would do and which was widely reported at that time, there would have been no Jewish refugees left alive to concern the world. The Arab states (and there are 21 Arab states, compared to one Jewish state, which is smaller than Wales) have continually refused to permanently resettle the original Arab refugees who fled the battle areas in 1948 and their descendants (now known as the Palestinians, even though the term Palestinian was most frequently used to describe Jews prior to 1948). Why aren’t you outraged at crimes committed by Arabs against their own people? There is no moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas, the PLO/Fatah, Hizbullah, and other terror organizations, who happily sacrifice their own people for the sake of killing Israelis (Jews from all over the world plus Arabs, Armenians, Greeks, and other non-Jewish minorities). No, Joss, Chris has no blind spot — it’s you, who sees no difference between democratic countries and terror organizations — who would kill you if they could simply because you’re a Westerner, regardless of anything Israel might have done.

Jony

26th September 2010 (10:59 am)

Difficult subject, Chris.

My sympathy tends towards the Palestinians, for the occupation of their country, and the brutality to which they are subjected. Shalit is part of that system of repression, and as a soldier he is – whilst I am no expert on international law – at risk of being taken prisoner of war. I hope however he is being treated well, and is safe.

I am not certain that there’s been no outcry – Israel’s information machine is well organised and well-funded, quite unlike the information coming from Palestine, which is poorly covered in the media, much more dangerous to report, badly organised and is unable to match Israel financially.

Whether or not one takes the view that the outcry about Shalit’s capture has been sufficient – and I think it is muted because of his circumstances – it would perhaps be fair to mention the thousands of Palestinian political prisoners held in Israeli jails too. What’s perhaps relevant is that there is no widespread knowledge of (even some of) their names, yet most people interested in current affairs across the world know who Gilad is. Perhaps there is something rather skewed there, then, in terms of the coverage and sympathy in the mainstream media?

I too balked at “defensive operations” – the lethal attacks on Lebanon in 2006, Gaza in 2008/2009 and more recently the aid convoy from Turkey were widely condemned around the world. The media tend to amplify US/UK pro-Israeli talking heads, but the views around the world oppose what is happening to Palestine, and American/Israeli foreign policy by a vast majority. The same happens in the UN when all countries get to vote on Israel’s behaviour: often Israel finds itself voted against a hundred or so countries to three (no prizes for guessing which ones). These votes will often call on Israel to respect international law, usually after some violence has flared up, though sometimes in relation to the ongoing occupation.

However, let me confound the expectations of your commentators above, of whom there is a mix of support for either Palestine and Israel, and say they’re all wrong. People of all political stripes need to see that both Israel and Palestine need to be helped towards peace. That would mean that Joss would need to agree that Israel has a right to exist, and must be allowed to feel secure in the region, Dror needs to understand that Hamas needs to come to the negotiating table, and Josh might consider that the “newly reborn Jewish state” was placed on top of an existing people. Joss should feel able to critise Hamas for their religious fundamentalism, while Josh should try to understand that Israel is also viewed by some people as a terrorist state, even if he disagrees with that assessment.

Both sides have, repeatedly, broken international law. Both have the blood of innocents on their hands. Both sides believe the other side started it. Both are propelled by violent, racist and religiously extreme ideologies. Children of both sides are routinely taught about the inferiority of the other. Some Palestinian children are taught that it is good to kill Israeli civilians, whilst Israeli children are invited to sign their names on the IDF bombs that will be dropped on women and children in Gaza. There are of course many ideologues speaking for one side only, and until the right-wing Israel supporters and the left-wing Palestine supporters realise this, people will just convince themselves that it is “the other party’s fault” that peace is not yet on the table.

Comments are now closed for this post