18 thoughts on “Israeli Soldier Kidnapped – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. There are false alarms like this every few weeks. Not sure if you were following Ma’an news agency, but it just goes to show that it’s a deeply unreliable source (claimed that the soldier had phoned to report his kidnapping etc etc). Sometimes it’s best to hold off before pushing publish!

    1. I don’t at all agree with you about Maan. I’ve generally found them reliable, certainly moreso than some Israeli publications like the J.Post, Yisrael HaYom, etc. Helena Cobban, a source I trust implicitly has this to say:

      Maan news agency operates out of Bethlehem but tries to do a good job of providing coverage that is as neutral as possible between Fateh, Hamas, and other Palestinian organizations.

      1. Well maybe they’re reliable because they confirm what you already know to be true. Question: Where were they getting all these bizarre stories confirming the ‘kidnapping’?
        Where did you read that the IDF had announced it?

          1. Well they didn’t say the IDF confirmed a soldier had been kidnapped, but until I understand exactly where you get the idea that they did it’s difficult to make a proper comparison.

      1. Sorry, he was kidnapped.

        And if as you claim he was “captured” as part of a military action then Hamas is bound by international protocol in how it must treat such a POW–and that is regardless of how Israel may treat its own POWs. Hamas has flagrantly violated such international conventions in its treatment of Shalit. So if you want to play this semantic game, 2 can tango.

        1. Richard, I have absolutely no problem with Hamas being held to international standards in its treatment of captives as long as Israel is required – and I mean really required – to hold to the same standards.

          I do not consider it a semantic game to challenge the kind of propagandistic language by which Israel only ever “arrests” or “captures”, even when it is taking civilians as hostages, while its enemies only ever “kidnap”, even when they take active-duty Israeli soldiers.

          1. I call the IDF’s taking of Arab captives ‘kidnapping’ whenever it happens, esp. when they are not militants. The Lebanese peasants who were kidnapped during the Lebanon war to use of bargaining chips in case the IDF soldiers were alive were kidnapped plain & simple & I called it that. I have written here an entire post about the Israeli use of language as propaganda tool. It’s particularly odious & I am sensitive to it.

            I don’t think that one side should observe the Geneva conventions regarding POWs only if the other side does. I think this should be a standard that each side honors in and of itself & it should not be conditional.

          2. Richard, I don’t doubt that you endeavor to use honest language, though I was not around when you wrote the post you refer to. And I stick to my insistence that soldiers of an attacking or occupying power, particularly on-duty soldiers, are not kidnapped, but captured, and the use of the term kidnapped in that situation is propagandistic and dishonest.

            You are right that one side’s observing Geneva conventions should not be conditional on the other side’s doing so. It was not clear from what I wrote, but what I object to strongly is demands that those resisting aggression and struggling under the boot heel of tyranny, including the tyranny of foreign occupation and colonization, must uphold a higher standard of conduct than we demand of the aggressor and the tyrant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link