Israel will no longer return bodies of Palestinian Hamas militants

[webfact]

Israel will no longer return bodies of Palestinian Hamas militants

 

JERUSALEM: -- Israel will not return the bodies of Palestinian militants to their families, but will bury them instead, officials said.

 

Israel said it was taking measures to ensure the return of Israeli remains from Palestinian territory.

 

But the country's security cabinet announced the move after the release of mocking videos from the armed wing of Hamas.

 

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38486573

 

-- © Copyright BBC 2017-01-02

[geriatrickid]

Israel should have been disposing of the bodies in unmarked graves long ago. Its sensitivity to muslim cultural practices was stupid as the terrorists and their supporters were not extending any consideration to Israel when Israelis were  captured and murdered by these people. The Israeli gesture of respect was dismissed and unappreciated.  Hamas never  extended any form of respect to the Israeli dead.

[impulse]

Thumbing their nose at yet another international convention, according to the Red Cross (Rules 105 x 114):

 

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter35_rule114

 

 

 

[Morch]

21 minutes ago, impulse said:

Thumbing their nose at yet another international convention, according to the Red Cross (Rules 105 x 114):

 

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter35_rule114

 

 

 

 

Israel was perfectly willing to exchange bodies of Hamas militants in return for the remains of two IDF soldiers. Hamas tried to push for other conditions, which included prisoners and concessions. Read the article linked in the OP.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, geriatrickid said:

Israel should have been disposing of the bodies in unmarked graves long ago. Its sensitivity to muslim cultural practices was stupid as the terrorists and their supporters were not extending any consideration to Israel when Israelis were  captured and murdered by these people. The Israeli gesture of respect was dismissed and unappreciated.  Hamas never  extended any form of respect to the Israeli dead.

 

In this case, the bodies were kept as the aim was to trade them for remains of Israeli soldiers, less to do with sensitivity to Muslim cultural practices. 

[impulse]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Israel was perfectly willing to exchange bodies of Hamas militants in return for the remains of two IDF soldiers. Hamas tried to push for other conditions, which included prisoners and concessions. Read the article linked in the OP.

 

So, what you're saying is that we can violate international conventions with impunity because the bad guys do.  Something like 2 wrongs make a right?

 

I'm sure they'd happily repatriate the IDF guys in return for some land illegally settled, too.  See how that works?  It's lose-lose.  As if the families of the militants who won't be returned have any control over whether the IDF soldiers are repatriated.  

 

You're either a member of the family of nations, and follow the inherent conventions- or you don't.  If you choose not to follow them, don't get all pissy when the rest of the world doesn't support you, or if the bad guys don't afford your fallen the same consideration.  But you'd better have a real strong military if you go down that path.  Go down it far enough, you'll be all alone.  And that's a dangerous neighborhood.

[Jingthing]

Israel doesn't "occupy" Gaza. Gaza is controlled by Hamas.

As usual, the predictable dreary morality lectures at Israel from people that can't even distinguish the West Bank from Gaza.

But what Hamas does is A-OK. Yeah, sure thing, that's the ticket. 

Happy New Year!

Edited January 2, 2017 by Jingthing

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

So, what you're saying is that we can violate international conventions with impunity because the bad guys do.  Something like 2 wrongs make a right?

 

I'm sure they'd happily repatriate the IDF guys in return for some land illegally settled, too.  See how that works?  It's lose-lose.  As if the families of the militants who won't be returned have any control over whether the IDF soldiers are repatriated.  

 

You're either a member of the family of nations, and follow the inherent conventions- or you don't.  If you choose not to follow them, don't get all pissy when the rest of the world doesn't support you, or if the bad guys don't afford your fallen the same consideration.  But you'd better have a real strong military if you go down that path.  Go down it far enough, you'll be all alone.  And that's a dangerous neighborhood.

 

So, what you are saying is that Israel should have just handed over the bodies of Hamas militants, in return for nothing whatsoever? IMO, that's yet another contrived nonsense, which sets the bar higher for when it comes for Israel. If you could cite a similar case which was dealt with differently - you may have a point. Until then, the usual one sided take.

 

What you are "sure of" got nothing to do with reality. I find that it's better to be acquainted with details before posting, but maybe that's just me. The care expressed for the grief of Palestinian families is touching, now perhaps try and extend that to the grief of the Israeli families (and on this score, really recommended that you actually read the article linked in the OP).

 

The world isn't black and white. Most treaties often cited in this context were not designed to deal with such situations as appears in the OP, but to regulate issues between countries. Conveniently enough, we often here that Palestine is a state, but when it suits - it isn't. I don't think that there was actually much heavy weight criticism on with regard to the Israeli decision, which puts your predictions of isolation (as possibly stemming from this issue) in doubt.

[impulse]

23 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

So, what you are saying is that Israel should have just handed over the bodies of Hamas militants, in return for nothing whatsoever? IMO, that's yet another contrived nonsense, which sets the bar higher for when it comes for Israel. If you could cite a similar case which was dealt with differently - you may have a point. Until then, the usual one sided take.

 

What you are "sure of" got nothing to do with reality. I find that it's better to be acquainted with details before posting, but maybe that's just me. The care expressed for the grief of Palestinian families is touching, now perhaps try and extend that to the grief of the Israeli families (and on this score, really recommended that you actually read the article linked in the OP).

 

The world isn't black and white. Most treaties often cited in this context were not designed to deal with such situations as appears in the OP, but to regulate issues between countries. Conveniently enough, we often here that Palestine is a state, but when it suits - it isn't. I don't think that there was actually much heavy weight criticism on with regard to the Israeli decision, which puts your predictions of isolation (as possibly stemming from this issue) in doubt.

 

I'm saying that Israel's policy here is in violation of Red Cross Rule #114, which also covers conflicts of a non-international nature.  Making Palestine's statehood status immaterial.

I'm saying 2 wrongs don't make the second one okay.   

 

I'm saying that Israel's credibility and status as a member of the family of nations is eroding each time they thumb their nose at international law and international conventions. 

 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I'm saying that Israel's policy here is in violation of Red Cross Rule #114, which also covers conflicts of a non-international nature.  Making Palestine's statehood status immaterial.

I'm saying 2 wrongs don't make the second one okay.   

 

I'm saying that Israel's credibility and status as a member of the family of nations is eroding each time they thumb their nose at international law and international conventions. 

 

 

And I'm saying that you are simply trying to hold up Israel to higher standards while exhibiting disregard for the reality of the situation. That you wish to apply these ideals with respect to one side but not the other is nothing new. The link provided, by the way, actually does not include such an obligation in the case of non-international conflicts, but convention, precedence and recommendation.

 

How is the Palestinian statehood status immaterial? Or is it immaterial only when uncomfortable situations arise?

 

I never claimed that two wrongs made a right, just that ideals are sometimes trumped (no pun intended) in the face of reality. As for your closing lines, you are welcome to cite any international criticism of consequence with regard to the Israeli decision. And again, perhaps explain how the disregard exhibited by Palestinians does not effect them in such a way.

 

I think most people who will read beyond the headline, may have somewhat more criticism reserved for Hamas actions and conduct.

[geriatrickid]

34 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

I'm saying that Israel's policy here is in violation of Red Cross Rule #114, which also covers conflicts of a non-international nature.  Making Palestine's statehood status immaterial.

I'm saying 2 wrongs don't make the second one okay.   

 

I'm saying that Israel's credibility and status as a member of the family of nations is eroding each time they thumb their nose at international law and international conventions. 

 

Pity you have not one word of condemnation for Hamas. Why is that?

 

[impulse]

3 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

Pity you have not one word of condemnation for Hamas. Why is that?

 

Perhaps because the topic of discussion is Israel's decision to violate yet another international convention, and not Hamas' behavior?

 

You did notice that I characterized the Israeli decision as the 2nd wrong?  Who do you figure I was referring to in regards to the first wrong? 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

Perhaps because the topic of discussion is Israel's decision to violate yet another international convention, and not Hamas' behavior?

 

You did notice that I characterized the Israeli decision as the 2nd wrong?  Who do you figure I was referring to in regards to the first wrong? 

 

Perhaps because the topic of discussion is Israel's decision to violate yet another international convention, and not Hamas' behavior?

 

Only for posters with attention span that does not stretch beyond headlines.

 

[impulse]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

Perhaps because the topic of discussion is Israel's decision to violate yet another international convention, and not Hamas' behavior?

 

Only for posters with attention span that does not stretch beyond headlines.

 

You can rehash whatever you want.  As many times as you want.  God knows it's been done to death a thousand times on TVF.  

 

We could discuss the hundred other times Israel has gotten away with thumbing their noses at international laws, or how they were recently spanked.  And we could discuss the thousands of despicable acts perpetrated by Palestinians and other terrorists in their name.  Plenty of fodder all around.

 

I was limiting my discussion to the topic in the OP.    

 

On an aside, when the DNA tests start rolling in, how many Israeli politicians do you figure they'll discover were stolen form their Yemeni parents at birth?  If you want to go afield...

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

You can rehash whatever you want.  As many times as you want.  God knows it's been done to death a thousand times on TVF.  

 

We could discuss the hundred other times Israel has gotten away with thumbing their noses at international laws, or how they were recently spanked.  And we could discuss the thousands of despicable acts perpetrated by Palestinians and other terrorists in their name.  Plenty of fodder all around.

 

I was limiting my discussion to the topic in the OP.    

 

On an aside, when the DNA tests start rolling in, how many Israeli politicians do you figure they'll discover were stolen form their Yemeni parents at birth?  If you want to go afield...

 

You are limiting your discussion to the headline, or with somewhat greater generosity, to this stub of an OP. There's a link to the original article therein, which you seem to ignore.  If you wish to call going beyond the headline, or referring to the article as "re-hashing" that's your choice. There was no suggestion of re-telling all the conflict's history, that's a bogus interpretation added by yourself.

 

What does the last bit of deflection got to do with the topic? Or with the Palestinian's for this matter?

 

 

 

 

[bobbin]

Well.. I voted for Morch for POTY..  He is biased but he still attempts to add depth and insight into these "discussions". He is not, at least to my eyes, a simple cheerleader for Israel, like several posters here with whom we are well familiar.

 

But..he says impulse is simply trying to hold Israel to higher standards and I ask "why not?". Is Israel not regarded as the most evolved country in the region? Isn't that why we are supposed to protect them at all costs lest we lose the only democracy in the ME? If both sides are holding human remains as bargaining chips, and the bargain is not getting done, Israel has nothing to lose, and perhaps some good will to be gained, by returning the bodies to their families.

 

And geriactickid asks impulse why he has no condemnation of Hamas. Again, is Israel not regarded, probably rightly so, as the more civilized (by many measurements) entity, and should be expected to take the high road? Cue Mrs. Obama.."When they go low, we go high"...

 

This is not a contest of equals. Never has been. The vast majority of Israelis, either themselves or their very recent ancestors came to the area from outside and joined a long list of colonizers who out-muscle the current inhabitants in order to claim something as theirs. My country, and all countries of the New World being prime examples. But this exercise is happening now, not hundreds of years ago, and we are watching.

 

 

[Jingthing]

No. Not the same as colonialists. Jews are indigenous to Israel. The Israel demonization agenda tries so hard to deny that reality but most Jewish people get it.


It's darkly hilarious actually. Jews in the European diaspora for thousands of years never seen as native white people but now Israel demonization trying to paint Jews as white colonialists with no connection to Israel the same as white Belgians raping Congo.

As far as the argument that Israel should be better well there is merit to that POV within parameters of protecting their vital interests in defending Israel.

As such each specific issue is a judgment call.

[CharlieK]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

I'm saying that Israel's policy here is in violation of Red Cross Rule #114, which also covers conflicts of a non-international nature.  Making Palestine's statehood status immaterial.

I'm saying 2 wrongs don't make the second one okay.   

 

I'm saying that Israel's credibility and status as a member of the family of nations is eroding each time they thumb their nose at international law and international conventions. 

 

 

Last time I looked Israel isn't a member of the International red Cross, because red crescent countries don't recognise Israel, even though Israel applied to be a member, but those countries refused membership to  Israel.

 

[impulse]

5 minutes ago, CharlieK said:

Last time I looked Israel isn't a member of the International red Cross, because red crescent countries don't recognise Israel, even though Israel applied to be a member, but those countries refused membership to  Israel.

 

Apparently, they're not very interested in improving their chances of ever becoming a member, either.  Probably not in their best interest since they occasionally block Red Cross relief supplies bound for Gaza.  With extreme prejudice.

 

Yet more examples of violating international rules and conventions.   Sabotaging their own standing in the family of nations, one cut at a time.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Apparently, they're not very interested in improving their chances of ever becoming a member, either.  Probably not in their best interest since they occasionally block Red Cross relief supplies bound for Gaza.  With extreme prejudice.

 

Yet more examples of violating international rules and conventions.   Sabotaging their own standing in the family of nations, one cut at a time.

 

 

Would that be another instance of your "being familiar with the background"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magen_David_Adom#Membership_of_the_international_Red_Cross

 

Yet another example of biased drivel.

[Jingthing]

 

Apparently, they're not very interested in improving their chances of ever becoming a member, either.  Probably not in their best interest since they occasionally block Red Cross relief supplies bound for Gaza.  With extreme prejudice.

 

Yet more examples of violating international rules and conventions.   Sabotaging their own standing in the family of nations, one cut at a time.

I reckon there's more to the story than that.

But I get it. All Israel topics are another chance for the Israel demonization agenda to paint Israel in the worst possible light. That might be OK if the core of that agenda wasn't often denying the right of Israel to exist as a state with a Jewish identity.

[CharlieK]

4 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Apparently, they're not very interested in improving their chances of ever becoming a member, either.  Probably not in their best interest since they occasionally block Red Cross relief supplies bound for Gaza.  With extreme prejudice.

 

Yet more examples of violating international rules and conventions.   Sabotaging their own standing in the family of nations, one cut at a time.

yet it is well known the Israel treats wounded Syrian civilians from the conflict in Syria.

[Jingthing]

 

I read the article.  I'm familiar with a lot of the background.  I'm not swayed.  Israel is violating another international convention.

 

That "last bit of deflection"?  It may demonstrate a 60+ year pattern of Israeli behavior- one that's just coming to light.  At the very least, it shows how easy it is to sidetrack a discussion based on old baggage.

 

To jingthing, Jews are indigenous to the area.  As long as you ignore the 2,000 years when they were living somewhere else.  Okay, they had a token few percentage of the population during those millennia.

The majority of modern Israelis have historically recent roots in the Middle East. Glad you recognize though that Jews are indigenous to Israel.

[CharlieK]

@Morch I stand corrected but will add, There is still bias within the Red Cross towards MDA in some instances. To the point where it might be said they go against their own charter!  IMO

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I reckon there's more to the story than that.

 

Of course there is.  There's always 2 (or more) sides to the story.  Sadly, the MSM generally focuses on one.

 

Plenty of blame to go around, but not much willingness to compromise, which is generally the solution to complex problems.   Very few are solved unilaterally, or meet the desires of all parties.  The needs?  Maybe.  But certainly not the desires.  

 

 

[Jingthing]

 
Of course there is.  There's always 2 (or more) sides to the story.  Sadly, the MSM generally focuses on one.
 
Plenty of blame to go around, but not much willingness to compromise, which is generally the solution to complex problems.   Very few are solved unilaterally, or meet the desires of all parties.  The needs?  Maybe.  But certainly not the desires.  
 
 

Agreed that unilateral dictates such as from the anti-Israel obsessed U. N. are not productive.

[impulse]

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The majority of modern Israelis have historically recent roots in the Middle East. Glad you recognize though that Jews are indigenous to Israel.

 

In 1882-1918, before the Euro colonialist meddling around WWI and routing the Ottoman enemy, the Jewish population in the area was 8%.

 

In 1948, after the Euro meddling and the holocaust, but before the Jewish state, it was 82%.  

 

That's not what I'd call indigenous.  That's Euro colonial manipulation on a massive scale.  The 2000+ year claim of a covenant from God, promising the land to the Jews?  That's a question of faith that I'm not smart (or pious) enough to discuss.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/israel_palestine_pop.html

[gamini]

1 hour ago, geriatrickid said:

Pity you have not one word of condemnation for Hamas. Why is that?

 

Hamas are freedom fighters, same as the French resistance during the last war. If Israel was to get out of the territory that it is illegally occupying operating in there would be no such problems.

[Honthy]

The newest humanitarian action from the Flagship of the Liberalism.

[Jingthing]

 

In 1882-1918, before the Euro colonialist meddling around WWI and routing the Ottoman enemy, the Jewish population in the area was 8%.

 

In 1948, after the Euro meddling and the holocaust, but before the Jewish state, it was 82%.  

 

That's not what I'd call indigenous.  That's Euro colonial manipulation on a massive scale.  The 2000+ year claim of a covenant from God, promising the land to the Jews?  That's a question of faith that I'm not smart (or pious) enough to discuss.

 

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/israel_palestine_pop.html

Not that B.S. again. The Zionist movement was started mostly as a political movement recognizing that life in the diaspora (diaspora meaning outside Israel) had proven too treacherous for the Jewish people and that political liberation /self determination in a state was necessary for the Jewish people to survive. That is not colonialism and it is also my view those pushing the lie that Jews don't have legitimate claims to Israel is very often thinly veiled hatred.

Other political opposition movements can be aggressive but Israel demonization is so often about denying Jews specifically their right to political self determination which in these times means Israel.