xiphias: (Default)
xiphias ([personal profile] xiphias) wrote2007-04-22 09:30 pm

(no subject)

So, months back, a Palestinian militant group made a raid into Israeli territory, and captured an Israeli soldier, Cpl. Gilad Schalit. Hamas has offered to do a prisoner exchange -- 1400 jailed Palestinians for Cpl Schalit.

Now, as Hamas doesn't recognize the legitimacy of Israel, and Israel doesn't recognize the legitimacy of Hamas, they have to go through Egypt for the negotiations, but, whatever. Off the record, Israeli officials have said that Hamas is not going to get all 1400 prisoners: the 450 or so who are in for direct participation in attacks which have killed civilians are definitely not going to be freed, and the best that Hamas can hope for is a few hundred prisoners.

Is this really a precedent that helps either side: that one Israeli life is worth several hundred, or even fourteen hundred, Palestinian lives? Is that what Hamas is saying -- that one Israeli soldier is worth fourteen hundred of their people?

I mean . . . if they were offering a one-on-one prisoner exchange, that would make sense. To make it work, they'd both have to acknowledge each other's existence, and acknowledge that they were two sovereign states at war with one another, and allow a prisoner-of-war exchange between two captured soldiers. That would be fair and reasonable.

But fourteen hundred to one? Do they really rate their own people that little? Do the Israelis?

To me, it seems deeply troubling that Israel would consider trading TWO Palestinians for an Israeli -- because that implies that they value Israeli lives higher than Palestinian lives, and not merely on the pragmatic basis that, "Well, our job is to protect our own people, more than to protect other people", but as a genuine valuation.

And it seems even more troubling that Hamas feels the same way.

[identity profile] noveldevice.livejournal.com 2007-04-23 01:39 am (UTC)(link)
It makes you wonder, though, if Hamas isn't just going by prior experience--"the Israelis value us so lightly and their own so highly that we have a reasonable chance of getting several hundred people released for their one, so we might as well start the bidding as high as possible". The fact that Israel is saying "Well, we can't give you these 450 people, but we can negotiate on the rest" seems to imply that Hamas is at least partially right.

[identity profile] pocketnaomi.livejournal.com 2007-04-23 01:40 am (UTC)(link)
The opinion of Hamas is basically that the Israelis have a stupid sentimental weakness that they can play on, that nobody sane would pay so much to get their people back. Hell, Israel's been willing to trade prisoners -- lots of them -- just to get back the dead bodies of their people for burial. The opinion of the Israelis is that they can get so many more prisoners at any given time than Hamas can as to be able to afford to do it this way without being in any danger of running out, whereas they cannot afford to lower morale among their soldiers by ever letting them believe that they wouldn't move heaven and earth to get them back. Neither one of them are dealing in concepts like absolute value here, one way or the other.

[identity profile] alaria-lyon.livejournal.com 2007-04-23 01:58 am (UTC)(link)
they cannot afford to lower morale among their soldiers by ever letting them believe that they wouldn't move heaven and earth to get them back

Is this the problem with a mandatory/non-volunteer army? In America, we can say that soldiers volunteered and they know there job and they know the risk. But when it is mandatory, and people don't get that choice, doesn't the State have a larger responsibility to protect the people that are serving?

[identity profile] mattblum.livejournal.com 2007-04-23 01:41 am (UTC)(link)
Well, from Hamas's perpective, surely they want to get as many of their people back as possible. If Israel's willing to give them a whole bunch of Palestinians in exchange for just one Israeli, why wouldn't they accept that? Should they say "No, thanks, just give us one prisoner; keep the other couple hundred you were going to give us," just because of the implications for relative worth?
gingicat: deep purple lilacs, some buds, some open (Jewish)

[personal profile] gingicat 2007-04-23 06:37 pm (UTC)(link)
I think it actually says something MORE troubling - that there are more captive Palestinians than Israelis.

It sucks not to be able to support Israel wholeheartedly, but...

[identity profile] xiphias.livejournal.com 2007-04-23 07:42 pm (UTC)(link)
Almost all of those Palestinians have been charged with crimes. Many of them have already had trials.

"Captive Palestinians" largely means "Palestinian nationals who were convicted of crimes in Israel."

That's the other issue here: we are trading "person who was captured in war" for "people who have been charged with, and often convicted of, crimes".