Egypt, Israel work to free soldier; Mediators: 'He's hurt, but alive'

[cali]

By Aluf Benn, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert yesterday ordered the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for a massive ground incursion into the Gaza Strip in response to a Palestinian assault on an IDF outpost that resulted in the kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit.
However, the operation was promptly put on indefinite hold, for fear of endangering Shalit, and the cabinet announcement was apparently issued primarily as a way of pressuring the Palestinians to release him.

Israel also attempted to apply pressure through various other channels yesterday, including asking American and Egyptian officials to press the Palestinian Authority for Shalit's return, and by warning the PA that Israel would start targeting senior Hamas leaders, including members of the Hamas-led PA government, if Shalit is not returned unharmed. Hamas was one of three organizations that participated in the assault on the outpost, which is located on the Israeli side of the Gaza-Israel border.

The assault also killed two soldiers - First Lieutenant Hanan Barak, 20, of Arad and Staff Sergeant Pavel Slutzker, 20, of Dimona - and wounded another seven, of whom three were released after being treated by the hospital. Of the other four, two were lightly injured, one was moderately injured, and the fourth was initially classified as seriously injured, but has since improved and is now in moderate condition.

<snip>

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/731198.html

[Scurrilous]

1. Shalit holds French citizenship; Paris working for his release

<snip>

"Kidnapped Israel Defense Forces soldier Corporal Gilad Shalit has duel French-Israeli citizenship and officials in Paris have been working since his abduction on Sunday to secure his release from Gaza gunmen.

Corporal Gilad Shalit was a member of the crew of a tank stationed just outside the border of Gaza, when gunmen from Hamas and other armed groups attacked their IDF position early Sunday morning.

Two members of the tank crew were killed, a third seriously wounded, and Gilad, also wounded, was taken captive and brought across the border into the Gaza Strip.

Shalit's father was born in France and he therefore holds French citizenship.

Yael Avran, spokeswoman for the French Embassy in Tel Aviv, said diplomats are "fully active in order to liberate the soldier." She said French officials in Paris were in touch with Palestinian officials, and the French ambassador planned to meet with the Shalit family, later in the day."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/731476.html

[sweetheart]

2. and the solution will be to murder some more civilians

... barbarians.

[cali]

3. It's good to know

that people can analyze the situation so astutely.

[Violet_Crumble]

4. A question for you...

You don't say anything when the accusations of barbarity are aimed at the Palestinians, so do you think the barbarity is one-sided or do you think the barbarity is something that's evident on both sides? Y'know, I just watched the news and it's impossible not to feel for him and to hope that he is released alive, but the accompanying footage of Olmert makes it pretty clear that Israel is prepared to kill a lot of Palestinians in retribution. How is any of that not barbaric? The bottom line is that Israel should always have applied the Geneva Conventions when it comes to its actions in the Occupied Territories and to militants it captured, and likewise Hamas now has the same obligation to ensure that this soldier is treated as a POW. And any claims that Israel hasn't done the same doesn't justify any ill-treatment of this soldier now - it's that old two wrongs don't make a right thing....

[cali]

6. One more time.

and how many times do we need to go over this, miss crumble? I've clearly condemned both Israeli policy and actions repeatedly. Of course you know that's true. I absolutely denounce Ohmert's policies of firing missiles into populated areas of Gaza. I reject any plans for communal punishment of Palestinians. Oh, yeah, I wasn't even sure who the poster was directing the word barbarian at- the Israelis as serious criticism or, speaking in a sarcastic tone, saying that the Israelis consider the Palestinians barbarians and thus expendable. I don't give a shit how the poster was using the word, my criticism was of verbal bomb throwing.

I don't use the word barbarian is these discussions. I don't think it's useful or accurate. I think it dehumanizes people. It also, to me, has sort of a quaint, fusty feel to it.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. I asked you a simple question...

..which wasn't answered. Care to answer it now?

Terms like barbarian, coward, etc, is used with monotonous regularity in this forum. Apparently the only 'verbal bomb throwing' that gets picked up on is when that 'verbal bomb' is aimed at Israel....

Just thought I'd add that the reaction to Israel's threats being called barbaric is imo completely over the top. The impression I got when I saw the news tonight was that what's bound to come now will indeed be barbaric, and will be yet more barbarism to add to an already brutal and bloody conflict...

btw, I'd appreciate it if you didn't call me 'miss crumble' in future. I'm Violet, and if you can't bring yrself to call me that, then don't call me anything :)

[cali]

9. You. Are. Wrong. Violet

I've condemned verbal bomb throwing from both sides.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. No. I'm. Not...

I'm calling bullshit in a big way on that one. Feel free to provide some links to prove me wrong though :)

[cali]

16. You can call bullshit until you're

violet in the face. Doesn't make you right. Here's a link. You'll find in my comments a condemnation of language directed toward Palestinians. These comments are regarding the language in the article posted, but there are several times I've condemned posters who've used language that denigrates Palestinians. You're so keenly interested in my prior comments, I suggest you do a search for further examples.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=123159&mesg_id=123159

[Violet_Crumble]

18. I'm calling bullshit coz I'm correct...

There was one sole post commenting only on the OP, not on the language used by posters in the thread, which is what you've done in this thread. And no, you haven't condemned posters who've used language that denigrates Palestinians at all. I'm not particularly interested in yr comments, btw, but was merely pointing out an obvious pattern of picking up posters for their 'language' only if they're pro-Palestinian....

[cali]

20. And I call bullshit on your bullshit

If you had the slightest interest in being fair or honest, you'd admit that I've condemned pro-Israeli posters who've used language about Palestinians that I consider revolting and dehumanizing. As for my comment on this thread, I explained that I didn't even know who the poster was labeling as barbarians. Continue to twist away.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Yes, but you'd be wrong...

I can't admit something that doesn't exist. There's no twisting involved in that, just knowing that no series of posts like that exists. And it was very clear by the post you replied to that the poster was referring to any Israeli actions...

[cali]

26. Violet, Violet, Violet

Here's my final word in this delightful little exchange: Unlike you, I actually provided some evidence. There's plenty more for anyone interested enough to see the truth. You, on the other hand, have done nothing more than call me a liar and presume to tell me what I was thinking regarding a comment or mine; when I have explicitly told you what I was actually thinking. And that, my dear violet, says far more about you, than it does about me.

[Violet_Crumble]

27. Cali, Cali, Cali...

No you didn't provide some evidence of what I specifically mentioned. You provided something completely different, and I explained that very clearly in one of my posts. I also did not tell you what you were thinking. I said that the poster you replied to was very clear about which 'team' they were replying to...

btw, I have NOT called you a liar. If I had, it'd be here in this thread and it's not, as opposed to this comment from you: 'If you had the slightest interest in being fair or honest,'. I'd also appreciate it if you refrained from referring to me as 'dear'....

[sweetheart]

5. Its like a bloody world cup score

The palestineans have x israeli's imprisoned for crimes against paletinean people
and the israeli's have y palestineans imprisoned for crimes against israeli's.
The dead for the PA is w
and the dead for the IDF is z

Now, not knowing any of w,y, x, or z, random logic says that these number should
be in relative partity as long as stupid people are doing eye-for-an-eye, not recognizing
each other's right to exist, relative justice.

[Scorpio2000]

8. Prisoner exchange

What is extremely unusual in this case, is that the Gazans actually took a prisoner ALIVE! (so we're being told)

One reason that there has never been a prisoner exchange between israel and it's "opponents" is that generally speaking the prisoners taken by the opposition are brutalized and murdered.

Who will ever forget the image of the West Bank resident, hands and arms covered in blood, waving from a second floor window of a police station?

Two Isreali reverve soldiers made a wrong turn and ended up in an Arab village.
They were brought to the police station, what was left of their bodies was tossed to a cheering crowd below. Like tossing bones to ....
Cheers and dancing ensued.

[Scurrilous]

11. Info on prisoner exchanges between Israel and its opponents:

Background on Israeli POWs and MIAs

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2004/1/Background%20on%20Israeli%20POWs%20and%20MIAs


As for wrongs turns, yeah...they can be a real problem:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=128266&mesg_id=128266

[Scorpio2000]

12. A Case for Moral Equivalency

I see the parity between rock throwing and butchery, thanks for clearing that up.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. You do realise Palestinians have been murdered, don't you?

While Scurrilous posted an example of someone who took a wrong turn, there's plenty of examples of Palestinians being in the wrong place at the wrong time and murdered by settlers for it. I can supply you with some links if you don't believe it...

btw, did you notice that in the link Scurrilous posted from the Israeli govt site, while Israel claims it holds the whole concept of POWs sancrosanct, it doesn't treat Palestinian prisoners as POWs?

[Scorpio2000]

14. Since when have Gazans honored the Geneva Convention?

Qualification as POW

In principle to be entitled to prisoner of war status the captured service member must have conducted operations according to the laws and customs of war, e.g. be part of a chain of command, wear a uniform and bear arms openly. Thus, franc-tireurs, terrorists and spies may be excluded. In practice these criteria are not always interpreted strictly. Guerrillas, for example, may not wear a uniform or carry arms openly, yet are typically granted POW status if captured. However, guerrillas or any other combatant may not be granted the status if they try to use both the civilian and the military status. Thus, the importance of uniforms — or as in the guerrilla case, a badge — to keep this important rule of warfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war

And then of course there were the Israelis captured during a joint operation between Hezbollah and UN "peacekeepers" They filmed the capture and the murder. Thanks to the Geneva Conventions...and stuff like that.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. So that makes it acceptable for Israel not to honour it??

That's some pretty convoluted logic at play there...

[Scorpio2000]

17. Special Rules for Gazans

Israel is held to special rules.
The Gazans are held to even more very special and unique rules.

Being a Gazan means never having to say "Sorry"

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Is there some reason why you can't call Palestinians Palestinians?

You do realise that people from Gaza are Palestinians and that this conflict involves a much larger number of Palestinians in the West Bank? Which leads back to the question of why do you insist on putting the word Palestinian in quotations?

[Scorpio2000]

21. Pre-occupied with Occupation

"You do realise that people from Gaza are Palestinians"

And, Egyptians, Libyans, Algerians, Tunisians etc...
Like everywhere the Gazans are a mixture of immigrants. Have we forgotten that Egypt Occupied Gaza for twenty years?

There is nothing unique about Gazans.

Many living in the "west bank" still hold Jordanian passports (that OCCUPATION doesn't count either)

[Violet_Crumble]

23. Pre-occupied with denying the existance of the Palestinian people...

I guess you won't have any problems then if it's pointed out that "Israelis" are made up of immigrants and from this point on it's only fair to refer to Israelis as "Israelis" and that many of them hold passports of other countries?

Newsflash: no matter how much some folk would like to pretend they don't exist, the Palestinian people do exist, they are living under occupation, and the West Bank also exists...

[Scorpio2000]

24. Gazans live in Gaza

"I guess you won't have any problems then if it's pointed out that "Israelis" are made up of immigrants and from this point on it's only fair to refer to Israelis as "Israelis""

Makes sense to me. There's a nation called "Israel". The population includes Arabs form the neighboring countries (some local) who are also called "Israelis".

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Palestinians live in Gaza....

While I wouldn't have any problem with someone referring to Gazans who didn't repeatedly use quotation marks for Palestinians while not once doing the same for Israelis, when it's done by anyone who has that habit I mentioned, then I'm more than a bit suspicious of the motives involved, which seem to be deeply seated denial more than anything else....

[Scorpio2000]

28. Three times, and it's yours

Feel free to use the word "nefarious" You've earned the right!

[Violet_Crumble]

29. Want to try addressing the post?

It's not that difficult a thing to do :)

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[meti57b]

32. "Israeli"s are citizens of the nation of Israel. All citizens of Israel,

both Jews and Arabs and anyone else who is a citizen can be referred to as an "Israeli". "Palestine" is/was the name given to the entire area of the Mandate, such that the name "Palestinians" isn't by itself, descriptive of the "Palestinian Arabs". There are also Palestinian Jews. If you are talking about the Palestinian Arabs then call them "Palestinian Arabs".

[Violet_Crumble]

33. Lots of dit-dits in that post...

And not one attempt to actually address the post it was replying to. So I've got a question for you, meti57b. Do you have a problem with attempts in some circles to deny the existance of the Palestinian people by doing things like putting dit-dits round it every time they use the word, or sticking the words 'so-called' in front of it? If not, why not?

[meti57b]

41. I am saying that the expressions ......

"Palestinian" and "Palestinian people" do not adequately define or differentiate from others, the people, whom I assume you are referring to. IMO, it should be "Palestinian Arabs".

By "dit-dits", I assume you are talking about quotes. Spell check and dictionary.com do not seem to recognize "dit-dits" or "dit". I have attempted to use quote marks when I am specifically referring to a word, phrase or definition. Admittedly, I'm not an English major.

[Violet_Crumble]

43. ..and what does that have to do with the post you were replying to?

Absolutely nothing. btw, you didn't answer the question I asked. Care to give it a try?

[meti57b]

45. I think you can understand my point. and no, I wouldn't find it especially

interesting to get into an exchange of rhetoric about it.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Yeah, I get that the point was to try to change the subject...

By an 'exchange of rhetoric', are you referring to the question I asked? Because if it is, I have no interest in commenting on yr answer. I'm just interested in finding out what you think, so don't be shy :)

[Jim Sagle]

30. Silly you. Don't you know there's only one occupation that counts?

[Violet_Crumble]

34. There's only one occupying power in this conflict, Jimbo...

Do you think the Palestinians are occupying Israel or something?

[Codeine]

35. So the Jordanians don't occupy...

...parts of the old "Palestinian" area?

[Scorpio2000]

36. Occupied by Hashemites

Just 80% of the Palestine Mandate, with a population that is 80% "palestinian".

But you're not supposed to bring that up. It deflates the issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jordan

[Violet_Crumble]

37. No, they don't....

Jordan isn't an occupying power at all in any respect. Maybe you'd like to clarify what yr talking about?

[Scorpio2000]

38. Jordan

Jordan was gifted to the Hashemites in 1922 by the Brits for their support against the Ottomon Turks. And in order to keep the Hashemites from attacking the house of Saud.

It became a nation "Trans Jordan" in 1947.
Trans Jordan (now Jordan) sits on 80% of the Palestine Mandate.

That's why the PLO tried to overthrow the kingdom, which led to Black September. (apparently the PLO considers Jordna occupied territory)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemite

[Violet_Crumble]

39. And Jordan is not an occupying power...

Which is what you and the other poster are claiming. Such a claim is incredibly ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is yr claim that the PLO considers Jordan to be occupied territory...

btw, wikipedia's credibility is just a bit on the stinky side considering any idiot can trot in and write what they like. Have you considered trying to find more reliable sources for whatever it is you think yr arguing?

[Scorpio2000]

40. Some difficult questions

Where are the Hashemites from? How did they come to rule Trans Jordan?
Who was living in Trans Jordan when the Hashemites got there?
When did this transpire?The history of "palestine" didn't start with the end of the "six day war"

[Violet_Crumble]

42. Don't worry. You'll find answers if you move away from Wikipedia...

As those questions have less than zero to do with yr false claim that Jordan is an occupying power in this conflict, I'll let you do some research on yr own....

[Scorpio2000]

44. Jordan

Let me help. The Hashemites ruled the two Holy cities, until they were overthrown by the House of Saud. In order to keep the Hashemites frolm attacking the Sauds after WWI, the UK gave the Hashemites 80% of Palestine.


http://rwor.org/a/v20/990-99/995/hussein.htm

The Growing Confrontation

The Hashemite kingdom of Jordan was artificially carved from historic Palestine after World War I by the British. Most of Hussein's "subjects" were Palestinians who were not particularly supportive of the king. Hussein depended for his survival on his army, with loyal Bedouin troops at the core. And to pay and equip this army, Hussein depended on U.S. economic and military aid. The U.S. paid for half of Jordan's budget. And Hussein received personal payments from the CIA starting in 1957.

Despite the U.S. backing, the June 1967 war and the growth of the Palestinian resistance movement left King Hussein in a very weakened position. With the guerrillas of the Palestine Liberation Organization controlling many towns and villages and even the capital city of Amman, there was a situation of "dual power" in Jordan. Hussein himself recalled later: "Amman became a virtual battlefield. No Regular Army people could enter the city in uniform, as they would be fired on by the PLO. I tried my best. Twice, I was ambushed. And I almost lost control. The people in the armed forces began to lose confidence in me..." Palestinian guerrillas rode around Amman in trucks, openly brandishing their weapons and shouting revolutionary slogans.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. And how does any of that prove that Jordan is occupying territory??

Which is what yr claim was. For yr information, Jordan is not carrying out an occupation of any territory when it comes to the I/P conflict. Israel is the only party that is carrying out an occupation of territory that doesn't belong to it. How much clearer does this need to be?

[Scorpio2000]

48. Jordan

The territories in question were annexed by Jordan. Jordan refused to negotiate the return of their territories after losing them in 1967.

Jordan also sits on 80% of the palestine mandate with 80% of its population "palestinian". The Hashemites are from the Arabian peninsula, NOT JORDAN.
How is that NOT an occupation? Is it because it wasn't opposed by any guerilla activity during its inception?

Both the PLO and Hamas have deep seated problems with Jordan. Partially due to Jordan's peace deal with Israel, the rest is the "occupation" that doesn't exist.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. Jordan is NOT occupied territory...

Jordan is a sovereign state that is NOT occupying any territory that is not part of it. That is a hard, cold fact that only extremists (like the hardcore settlers who claim that both sides of the Jordan River is part of Israel) would even attempt to deny. The only people that make claims along the line of Jordan is the Palestinian state are extremist zealots, and yr claims are coming very close to that....

[Scorpio2000]

50. Black September was a Civil War

The June 1967 war was a watershed in the modern history of Jordan. Within 48 hours Israeli forces had overrun the entire territory west of the Jordan River, capturing Bethlehem, Hebron, Jericho, Nablus, Ram Allah, Janin, and the city of Jerusalem. Jordan suffered heavy casualties and lost one-third of its most fertile land; its already overburdened economy was then faced with supporting some 200,000 new refugees. Hussein had regarded entering the war as the lesser of two evils: he believed that if he had not joined Egypt and Syria, they would have supported the Palestinians in overthrowing his regime. The loss of the West Bank and Jerusalem, devastating as it was, was preferable to the loss of his kingdom.

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-23333

[sabbat hunter]

51. in 1947

after the war of independence, what is now called the west bank, was occupied and annexed by jordan. why didnt they allow a palestinian state to be formed at that time?

IMO many arab countries leadership dont really want a palestine formed. they use the fact that there is none, to rally the citizens of their countries and keep pressure off of themselves and their repressive regimes. if a palestine is founded sucessfully, more pressure will be on them from their citizens.

[The Magistrate]

53. There Are Several Reason, Sir, It Was Not Done Then

One reason is that the leaders of the neighboring Arab states detested the man who would have been its leader, Grand Mufti al'Husseini. King Abdullah's feelings were particualrly strong in this regard.

Another is that the various Arab states all had designs of their own on the territory that would have comprised such a state, and even had some hopes of taking for themselves the whole of the Mandate's territory. King Abdullah, from the inception of the Trans-Jordan Emirate, had considered himself deprived of Jerusalem, and of any access to the Mediterranean coast. The regime in Damascus, considering itself the heir of the original "Arab Kingdom" proclaimed by King Feisal at the end of the Great War, felt that as that kingdom had proclaimed itself sovereign over Palestine at its foundation, all that territory ought rightfully to come under its rule. Farouk of Egypt wanted however much he could grab to lessen the power of his northern rivals: the area has always been a cockpit for rivalry between Egypt and Syria, goig back to the days of the Pharaohs.

[The Magistrate]

52. That Is Cute, Mr. S., But It Is Swill

As with most propaganda accounts, it is deliberately aimed at misleading people who lack much knowledge of the facts, and proceeds by using terms to mean different things at different times and in differing contexts.

The only definition of "Palestinian" that has any relevance to the current situation, and particularly to your odd characterization of the populace of the Gaza Strip earlier, is that refering to the Arab population of the Palestine Mandate, west of the Jordan River, and their descendants, with the common usage being taken to mean, further, those who live today outside Armistice Line that ended the '48 war. We could go back through Ottoman districts to Roman provinces in the area, and while it might be enjoyable to certain temperaments, it would add nothing useful to the discussion.

When the Emirate of Trans-Jordan was created in 1922, its population was mostly Bedouin, as it remains today. The only element of its population that one could reasonably consider "Palestinian" comprised the settled agricultural element resident on the east bank of the Jordan river. Rivers make convenient demarcation lines on maps, but are poor dividers in other ways, because people on either side of a river valley in the immediate vicinity of the water are generally joined by many contacts of kinship and trade across it. During the Mandatory period, there was of course little enforcement on this border relating to the ordinary passage of peaceable people, and so such ties were maintained throughout it. This mingled population was quite distinct from the desert nomads, and also distinct from the inhabitants of the coastal districts and urban centers west of the river that comprised the Palestine Mandate overseen by England. Trying to claim all these distinct groups are "Palestinians" is not true to the facts of the matter, though it can seem helpful to propagandists of either side on occassion to do this.

[Scorpio2000]

54. You are correct Your Honor, propaganda it is, Sir

"As with most propaganda accounts, it is deliberately aimed at misleading people who lack much knowledge of the facts"

This is true! That's why a palestinian arab living on the west side of the Jordan river is called a "palestinian" and a palestinian arab living on the East side of the Jordan river is called a "Jordanian".

During the Jordanian occupation of the "west bank" the palestinian arabs were granted Jordanian citizenship. Hence, they were jordanians until they magically became "palestinians" in 1967.

The Bedouin population of Jordan is estimated at about 5%, while estimates of the palestinian arab population range from 50-80% including refugees of the various wars.

[The Magistrate]

55. As A Matter Of Curiosity Then, Sir

How do you characterize the remaining portion of the country's population? The figures you produce leave a certain gap....

Further, just as a matter of clarification, are you one who subscribes to the tenet that Jordan is really the Palestinian state, and that therefore all the land from the river to the sea ought to be Israel?

[Scorpio2000]

56. Well Your Honor, to satisfy your curiosity, Sir

Let me fill in the gaps:

Arab 98%, Circassian 1%, Armenian 1%
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/jo.html

King Abdullah was wise to take a "Palestinian" (as she refers to herself) wife.

I've never called Jordan a "palestinian" state even though the population is primarily Palestinian Arab.
However, calling Jordan a "palestinian" state in no way implies that Israel need be any larger than it already is, but it is descriptive of it's demographic make-up.

The Palestine Mandate included all of the land which is now Jordan plus Israel and the disputed territories (the "west bank" and Gaza). 80% of which was gifted to the Hashemites.

[The Magistrate]

58. Actually, Sir

The Mandate granted England over Palestine, though proposed in 1920, was not ratified until 1922, and the Emirate of Trans-Jordan never formed any part of the official grant.

[Jim Sagle]

57. And there's only one conflict that counts.

Even though, on a 0-100 scale of global suffering, it amounts to about 1/16th.

[Violet_Crumble]

59. Yr wrong...

But don't let being wrong stop you...

[Jim Sagle]

60. Well, Vi, we'll just have to disagree here.