Gilad Shalit's family receives new letter from captive son

[Scurrilous]

Captive IDF soldier's parents receive third letter form Gilad as part of Hamas pledge to former US President Jimmy Carter. Israel maintains no truce possible in Gaza unless Shalit is returned safely

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3553474,00.html

<snip>

"The parents of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit, who was taken prisoner by Hamas over 20 months ago, have received another letter from their son, Monday.

The letter – which was preceded by two others – was relayed by Hamas as part of the group's pledge to former US President Jimmy Carter.

Shalit's father, Noam, confirmed that a letter was in fact relayed through the Born To Freedom Foundation: "The family had received a letter today via the secretary-general of the Carter Center.

"There are many signs indicating that the letter is authentic. It conveys a message from Gilad – he is pleading, begging us to do everything we can to see that he is released form captivity."

Carter, who met with Hamas politburo chief Khaled Mashaal twice during his Middle East visit, told the Shalit's that according to Hamas reports, Gilad was "doing well." The former US president met with the captive soldier's family and briefed them on his meeting with Hamas heads regarding their son."

[Scurrilous]

1. Israeli sources: Shalit letter is Hamas 'goodwill' gesture

<snip>

"Israeli sources say it is possible that Hamas' decision to hand Israel a letter from abducted soldier Gilad Shalit is an expression of "goodwill," in an effort to show that the group is willing to take some steps toward a truce deal.

In recent weeks Israel has demanded that any agreement for calm in the Gaza Strip, and the lifting of its siege on the Strip, would also include progress on the question of Gilad Shalit, who has been held in Gaza since his abduction in June 2006.

Israeli officials have asked that progress would constitute the transfer of the abducted soldier from the Gaza Strip to the Egyptians. Hamas has so far refused to agree to this.

Former U.S. president Jimmy Carter visited the region last month and met with Hamas leaders, including meeting Khaled Meshal in Damascus. At the end of his tour of the region, which also included the Palestinian Authority and Israel, Carter said that Meshal had agreed to his request for a humanitarian gesture - to relay a letter from Gilad Shalit to his family.

The letter from the kidnapped soldier was received by fax at the Carter Center in Ramallah on Sunday night, and was transferred to the Shalit family in Israel yesterday."

more

[henank]

4. They could do more than a token "goodwill" gesture

Hamas could (gasp!) actually allow the Red Cross to visit Shalit and determine if he really is alive and what condition he is in.

Similarly Hezbollah could allow the Red Cross to visit Goldwasser and Regev, the 2 captive soldiers, and let us know if they are alive or not. But don't expect any miraculous humanitarian gestures from them any time soon.

[shaayecanaan]

8. re

Hamas could (gasp!) actually allow the Red Cross to visit Shalit and determine if he really is alive and what condition he is in.

And maybe then they could then fax a map of his location to the Golani brigade, just to save time. How stupid do you think they are?

[Shaktimaan]

10. right. I forgot.

Hamas isn't expected to comply with any of the Geneva conventions at all.

[shaayecanaan]

12. So you acknowledge that the Geneva conventions apply to the conflict? nt

[henank]

14. Everyone insists that Israel abide by the

Geneva Conventions. Either they apply to both sides or neither.

[shaayecanaan]

16. My sentiments exactly

Either they apply to both sides or they do not. So, I repeat, do the Geneva conventions apply to the conflict? Because almost every mainline US Jewish organisation insists that they do not.

[Shaktimaan]

18. Some do, but that's not the point.

International humanitarian law applies to all situations, even when the extended Geneva conventions don't necessarily. One of which guarantees prisoners contact with their families, or at least with an international group like the red cross.

The thing is, everyone expects Israel to follow these rules to the letter, especially Hamas. And Israel does. Your comment wasn't that the double standard is unfair, it supported Hamas breaking the most basic rules of war. For no reason too. The International Red Cross doesn't give away information about where anyone is being held or use information they obtained to aid the captor's enemy. They are officially neutral so that they are able to do their work. They are even legally exempt from testifying in court for this reason.

So this has nothing to do with the legality of whether or not geneva applies to this conflict in its entirety. It is about a double standard applied to Israel that expects it to follow all of the geneva conventions completely while, not just giving Hamas a pass, but actively supporting their disregard for the most basic international humanitarian rules governing warfare. No one is exempt from these rules, nor should they be. And Hamas would be the first to complain should Israel not meet any of its obligations under them. Yet it is regularly expected that they ignore them because they wield less power. I always hear excuses made for Hamas as to why they are unable to meet the basic laws of war without compromising their ability to fight. However if that's the case then no one should expect Israel to willingly fight according to rules that only they are planning to observe.

[shaayecanaan]

20. Absolute, 200-proof, 100%...

bullshit.

International humanitarian law applies to all situations, even when the extended Geneva conventions don't necessarily.

You're backpedalling. Two posts ago, you were saying that the Geneva conditions did apply. What happened to make you change your mind?

One of which guarantees prisoners contact with their families, or at least with an international group like the red cross.

One of which? Which one precisely? Hint: Its the third Geneva convention.

So this has nothing to do with the legality of whether or not geneva applies to this conflict in its entirety.

Actually, I would say that it does. You're saying that Hamas should treat Shalit as a prisoner of war and in accordance with the Third Geneva Convention. Whether or not the Geneva conventions apply is therefore of great significance. What you now seem to be saying is that some provisions apply and that some don't, which, frankly speaking, is not a position that I am liable to take very seriously.

I am quite happy to keep pointing out the rank hypocrisy, double standards, and general attempts to squirm your way out of your own pool of bullshit. Alternatively, I anticipate that you will simply not reply to this message, which is about as close to a tacit acknowledgement as one is likely to experience on this board.

NB: for those who are following but are unable to read between the lines, here's the reason why Shakitmaan and co would, on the whole, prefer not to talk about the Geneva conventions:-

Fourth Geneva convention, Article 49:....."The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies"

[Shaktimaan]

21. So sorry. But you're wrong.

First of all, I never said that the Geneva Conventions apply. I said: Hamas isn't expected to comply with any of the Geneva conventions at all. I then clarified my point as being about the double standard that is expected of Israel.

The basic laws of war I was referencing are included in the geneva conventions which is why I believe that SOME of them do apply, no matter what the situation, in any armed conflict. The article you referenced is not applicable because Palestine and Hamas are not signatories to Geneva and thus, are not protected by it.

The law that promises contact with family members does not require that the prisoner be treated as a "prisoner of war" and is not directly relevant to Article III, although article III is the basis for these laws... (or vice versa depending on your viewpoint.) The laws I am referencing are the "Red Cross Fundamental Rules of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts." These are the bare minimum regarding Laws of War that must be observed regardless of whether the parties are signatories to Geneva or Hague or any other treaties. They are as follows:

1. Persons hors de combat and those who do not take a direct part in hostilities are entitled to respect for their lives and physical and moral integrity. They shall in all circumstances be protected and treated humanely without any adverse distinction.

2. It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who surrenders or who is hors de combat.

3. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for by the party to the conflict which has them in its power. Protection also covers medical personnel, establishments, transports and materiel. The emblem of the red cross (red crescent, red lion and sun) is the sign of such protection and must be respected.

4. Captured combatants and civilians under the authority of an adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, dignity, personal rights and convictions. They shall be protected against all acts of violence and reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief.

5. Everyone shall be entitled to benefit from fundamental judicial guarantees. No one shall be held responsible for an act he has not committed. No one shall be subjected to physical or mental torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading treatment.

6. Parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have an unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare. It is prohibited to employ weapons or methods of warfare of a nature to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering.

7. Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants in order to spare civilian population and property. Neither the civilian population as such nor civilian persons shall be the object of attack. Attacks shall be directed solely against military objectives.

http://www.alhaq.org/etemplate.php?id=93

As far as article 49 goes, even if one believes that Geneva applies to this conflict, there are various points of law that contradict 49's applicability in this particular case. I won't delve into them here as we aren't discussing the settlements, but rather the world community's expectation of Israel to follow International Humanitarian Law despite Hamas' violation of them and their reluctance to hold the Palestinians to the same standard of law that Israel is held to; as evidenced by your post supporting Hamas' rejection of even the most basic of humanitarian laws.

In fact, your series of posts illustrates my point precisely. You wrote that Hamas would be stupid to abide by these few universal rules yet saw no hypocrisy in then criticizing Israel for not abiding by a far less important, non-universal provision (one which is of debatable relevancy even if Geneva is in effect.)

And you have the chutzpah to try and call me out for hypocrisy? Give it up... your post is mostly cheap abuse anyway, with very little meat between the inept attempts at insulting me.

And thank you for demonstrating my point so perfectly. It's always good to have an actual example to point to during these discussions and your posts fulfilled that need nicely.

[shaayecanaan]

22. You do not have the faintest idea what you're talking about

Do you even know what "international humanitarian law" is? Its commonly defined as being the Hague Conventions on the Rules of War, the Geneva Conventions, and the case law of the ICJ dealing with both subjects, as well as customary international law. The fact that you are completely unaware of that and that you are desperately trying to cover up that fact simply confirms how utterly bankrupt your arguments and notions are.

The "Red Cross Fundamental Rules of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts" is simply an internal policy prepared by the Red Cross 30 years ago. It more or less restates the principles of the Geneva Conventions. It is not international law and does not have the force of law. It is not a convention nor is it a treaty. Moreover, it was never meant to be.

You wrote that Hamas would be stupid to abide by these few universal rules yet saw no hypocrisy in then criticizing Israel for not abiding by a far less important, non-universal provision

One: I have never previously raised the issue of the Geneva conventions, you did.
Two: Israel's disregard of the Fourth Geneva convention precedes Hamas' disregard of the Third by thirty years.
Three: exactly how is the prohibition on appropriation of occupied land less important than POW access to the Red Cross?

And to give you every last opportunity of giving a straight answer to a straight question, here it is again:-

1) Do you agree that the Geneva conventions apply, in which case Hamas are clearly in the wrong by holding Shalit without access to the Red Cross, and Israel is clearly in the wrong by settling the occupied territories?

2) Do you agree that they do not apply, in which case Hamas is free to ignore the Third Geneva Convention with the same flagrancy that Israel displays in ignoring the Fourth Geneva Convention?

For what its worth, I choose 1). It is illegal and contrary to the Third Geneva Convention for Hamas to hold Shalit without access to the Red Cross. That raises the question of whether one should strive to comply with international law when one's adversary shows no inclination to do so. As the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima bear out, historically, the answer to that question has been, No.

[henank]

13. What's the matter? Don't the Red Cross

visit POWs all the time? They can be taken blindfolded to visit him. Shalit could be moved temporarily to a regular jail - as opposed to whatever bunker or dungeon he's being held in - just for the visit. The possibilities are endless - if the will is there. Which of course it isn't, since no one expects Hamas to abide by the Geneva Conventions, as Shaktimaan said.

[Vegasaurus]

6. They think Israel will open up the borders in exchange for a letter? nt

[bemildred]

2. I'm glad he's alive, and I hope they set him free. nt

[LeftishBrit]

3. Me too!

And very soon, I hope!!!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

5. So you have similar wishes for the 11,000+ Palestinians held by Israel?

Thanks for answering...

[LeftishBrit]

11. For most of them, yes!

For those convicted of organizing or carrying out brutal murders, then, in general no (any more than I'd be enthusiastic about the release of Amir or of any brutal murderer); though I'd accept even that as part of a real peace deal. Despite the serious charges against Barghouti, I would like to see him released.

I certainly would not wish that any Palestinian prisoner should have his life threatened and his condition and whereabouts kept secret in the way that Shalit's has been.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

15. Is "Ansar III," Israel's open air desert prison still open?

For those under administrative detention, held without charge or trial, it's akin to being kidnapped, wouldn't you agree?

[bemildred]

7. Haniyeh advisor: Hamas expects gesture in exchange for Shalit letter

Hamas expects a gesture from Israel because it delivered a letter from kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit to his family, an advisor to Hamas' Gaza leader Ismail Haniyeh told Haaretz on Tuesday.

Ahmed Yusuf said that as a gesture of goodwill, Israel could release women prisoners or minors to prove it is serious about a prisoner exchange. Yusuf said Hamas has delivered two letters from Shalit, and released one audio tape of Shalit's voice; however, Israel has not responded with a gesture of its own. Yusuf also said that if Israel did nothing this time as well, it would be hard to imagine Hamas initiating a further gesture.

Channel 1 on Tuesday released portions of the letter Shalit's family received Sunday through the Carter Center. "Dear Dad, Mom, my brother and sister, grandmom and grandad and all the family. I am being treated well, although my health is very bad. I feel weakness and shortness of breath ... I ask you to do everything to return me home, otherwise it might end in tragedy. Israel must release Palestinian prisoners, because
they also have families waiting for them at home, and then I will be able to come home quickly," the letter said.

Channel 2 reported Tuesday that Noam Shalit, Gilad Shalit's father, met for the first time with Shin Bet security service chief Yuval Diskin, although Shalit would not confirm the report.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/991543.html

[oberliner]

9. Do we really think the letter was written by Shalit?

"Israel must release Palestinian prisoners, because they also have families waiting for them at home..."

Somehow, I get the feeling that letter may have been written under duress.

[Sezu]

17. Those nice democratically elected Hamas boys would never do

something like that after hugging Jimmy Carter would they?

[Vegasaurus]

19. Democratically elected

and autocratically ruled.

Terrible for the people.

[notfullofit]

23. Ain't that the truth. nt