Why so much emotion about the soldier Shalit ? Don't all conflicts produce prisoners of war, and isn't the young PFC from a tank crew, abducted in June, 2006, just a prisoner among others? Well, actually, no. For there are, first of all, international conventions governing the status of prisoners of war, and the sole fact that this one has been sequestered for four years, the fact that the Red Cross, which regularly visits Palestinians in Israeli prisons, has never been granted access to him is a flagrant violation of the laws of war. But moreover and most of all, we must never tire of repeating this: Shalit was not captured in the fury of a battle but during a raid in Israel, when Israel, having evacuated Gaza, was at peace with its neighbor. In other words, calling him a prisoner of war is tantamount to judging that the fact that Israel occupies a territory or has ceased to occupy it changes nothing in terms of the hatred one believes it deserves. It means accepting the idea that Israel is at war even when it is at peace, or that we should make war against Israel because Israel is Israel. And if we do not accept that, if we refuse this logic that is Hamas's own logic and which, if words mean anything, is the logic of total war, we must begin by completely changing the rhetoric and the lexicon. Shalit is not a prisoner of war but a hostage. His fate is comparable to that of, not a Palestinian prisoner, but a kidnap victim being held for ransom. And he must then be defended as we defend the hostages of the FARC or the Libyans or the Iranians -- we must stand up for him with the same energy devoted to the defense of, say, Clotilde Reiss or Ingrid Betancourt.
Hostage or prisoner, no matter, why all the fuss over a single man? Why this focalisation on an individual "of no importance to the community," a man "made of all men, worth them all and of the same value as anybody" [Sartre]? Well, it is because Shalit is, precisely, not just anybody, and that he is going through what sometimes happens, in times of extreme tension in world history, to individuals in no way predisposed to play a part who suddenly become the captors of this tension, those who attract the resultant lightning, the points of impact of forces that, in a given situation, converge and clash. The dissidents of the era of communism were such, as are the persecuted of China or Myanmar today. Or, yesterday, this or that humble Bosnian figure an unparalleled concentration of adverse circumstances catapulted to prominence, turning him into a sort of a chosen one, in reverse. So it is with Gilad Shalit. Thus this man whose face is still that of a child incarnates, most unwillingly, the unending violence of Hamas; the mindless urge to exterminate of its supporters; the cynicism of those "humanitarians" who, like those of the Free Gaza flotilla, refused to take a letter from his family; or, once again, the double standard whereby he does not benefit from the same wealth of sympathy as, precisely, a Betancourt. Is a Franco-Israeli worth less than a Franco-Colombian? Is the signifiant Israel enough to degrade him? Exactly why hasn't his portrait been hung next to that of the heroic Colombian, on the facade of the Hotel de Ville in Paris? And how can one explain that, in the little park in the 12th arrondissement where it was finally displayed, it has been so regularly vandalized, and with such impunity? Shalit the symbol. Shalit, like a mirror.
One last question, that of the price the Israelis seem ready to pay for the liberation of the captive and the related question of hundreds, some mention a thousand, of potential assassins who will then be released. This is not the first time the problem has occurred. Already, in 1982, Israel freed 4,700 combatants being held in the camp of Ansar in exchange for eight of its own soldiers. In 1985, 1,150 of them (including the future founder of Hamas, Ahmed Yassine) were set free in return for three of theirs. Not to mention the bodies, just the bodies, of Eldad Regec and Ehud Goldwasser, killed at the outset of the last war in Lebanon, traded, in 2008, for several leaders of Hezbollah, some of them sentenced for serious crimes. The idea, the double idea, is simple, and it is to Israel's credit. Against the cruelty, first of all, of the famous reasons of State, against the workings of the cold monsters and their terrible laziness, at the opposite of the glacial intransigence Italian writer Leonardo Sciascia was not afraid to decry in the wake of Aldo Moro's kidnapping by the Red Brigades and the way he was abandoned by his "friends," calling it another face of terrorism, this categorical and irrefutable imperative: between the individual and the State, always choose the individual. Between the suffering of only one and the turmoil of the Grand One, the one alone must prevail. A man may be worth nothing, but nothing -- and especially not the swaggering, chest-inflating pride of the Collective -- is worth the sacrifice of one man. And then, against a pseudo "sense of the Tragic" that serves as an alibi for so many instances of cowardice, in the face of the dime-store dialecticians rambling on ad infinitum about the possible perverse effects this action or that (the potential rescue, in this case, of a Daniel Pearl) might provoke in the distant future when faced with a situation of which we are presently unaware, this principle at the heart of Jewish wisdom, admirably summed up in Ecclesiastes (III: 23): do not concern yourself with that which goes beyond your works -- in your ignorance of the kingdom of ends and purposes and its ruses, just save the soldier Shalit.
Thank you for this beautifully written essay. Your points are very well, and eloquently, made.
The Shalit event happened on 25 June 2006. Only several days earlier, on Friday 8 June, a family of Gazans who were enjoying a picnic on a Gaza beach were killed by Israeli shelling of the beach. The Observer, on the following Sunday, reported on Abbas' statements on behalf all Gazans. This was after his party had lost the election.
"The Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, yesterday called his people to a referendum that would in effect recognise the state of Israel, a move that was immediately denounced by the radical Hamas government as a coup.
Abbas called the vote just hours after dramatic scenes in Gaza when thousands of mourners expressed grief and anger during the funeral of the family killed by an Israeli attack as they picnicked on a beach. The sobs of seven-year-old survivor Huda Ghalia disturbed onlookers as the girl screamed 'Don't leave me, don't leave me' to the shrouded bodies of her mother and father and three brothers and sisters. A total of seven people died in the shelling of the beach on Friday."
Apparently, even leaving aside the blockade (which is an act of was and was declared in January 2006 and was a tightening of the earlier "closure" policy), Israel was at war with Gaza's new and disappointing government.
ps: a military blockade is an act of war; a general blockade, as enacted by Israel, is actually a war crime.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/idf-probe-gaza-beach-blast-not-caused-by-wayward-army-shell-1.190119
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article675784.ece
Levy's contention that Israel was at peace with Gaza when Shalit as taken is contradicted by the IDF:
"We can say, surely, that the IDF is not responsible for the incident," [...] "We checked each and every shell that was fired from the sea, the air and from the artillery on the land and we found out that we can track each and every one according to a timetable and according to the accuracy of where they hit the ground. " This very clearly wrong the notion that the IDF was not shelling Gaza. Israel was at war with Gaza in the same month that Shalit was captured.
The Times article gets specific:
"Israel says that its land artillery batteries fired six shells at northern Gaza between 4.30pm and 4.48pm that afternoon, and that it can account for all but one, which was fired at 4.30pm. However, its investigation said that that shell was aimed too far away to have killed the Palestinians. " This is from the IDF.
We stated out here wondering whether Gaza was at war or not, now we're wondering about the aim of an artillery shell.
The quick overview:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_beach_explosion_%282006%29
Levy's argument hinges on the assertion that Israel was at peace with Gaza when Shalit was captured. Levy writes, "Shalit was not captured in the fury of a battle but during a raid in Israel, when Israel, having evacuated Gaza, was at peace with its neighbor. In other words, calling him a prisoner of war is tantamount to judging that the fact that Israel occupies a territory or has ceased to occupy it changes nothing in terms of the hatred one believes it deserves."
I'm not aware that Israel has ever declared war with Gaza or an end of a war. This lack of a legal framework of declared war is what has allowed the weaving and dodging of the propagandists.
But, to Levy's point, were Gaza and Israel "peaceful" when Shalit was abducted/captured/kidnapped?
... continued above
do you have a list of all of them, what about the ones who are being held with no charges? I guess the superiority complex runs very high among the apologists...
Yes, Hamas ought to let shalit go home to his family. Palestinians ought to be released from Israeli gulags and stop torturing them. Palestinians ought to be able to return to their homes that are inhabited by squatters. They still carry their door keys around their necks after 40 years. Israel ought not build settlements on occupied territories.
Now you want to site UN resolutions?
Don't insult your readers by playing the "who is morally superior game". Neither party has anything to brag about.
Do the 900,000+ jews forced from their homes get to go back too, or is this a palestinian only deal?
there you go...do you know that these 'assassins' as you put it thousands of them are held by Israel for more than 5+ years...so this is my question whose captivity is more worrisome, sorry to say I would vote for the persons who are rotting without any charges...
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/06/23/delusions/index.html
I'm Pro-Israel - as I'd have done the same thing, in 1948, that the Haganah did do; for I wouldn't have wanted to live under the backward, Feudalistsic, WAY pre-Enlightenment Governance of the post-Ottoman Banditos who were running the place; but Israel has ignored to many attempts, by International Community, to broker an 'Honorable Surrendor' for the Palastinians - especially the Dayton Accords (the former statistic, from Amy Goodmans Democracy Now, being the cause - the unignorable justification for the most recent Intifada) - to be bitching to me about 'nicities', my friend.
I'd give a DOG an Honorable Peace; and, when Israel decides to do the same for these Human Beings, you can mince nicities with me then, Bernard.
circling this collapsing western civilization the middle east and the Asian empires, for some unknown reason has embrace the western style of life, which is practically in ruins. this leaves the planet with very little options to renew itself but wars. and war this days can be quite dangerous. therefore the urgency of the now is to collect all nuclear weapons worldwide, simply because humans are losing their senses and having this nuclear devices running freely all over the place can be very dangerous. however once those toxic devices put aside war and killing can continue on a civilize manner.
Rabbi Perin was quoted thusly: "A million Arabs are not worth one Jewish fingernail"
Well of course the Palestinians feel differently about all that racist baloney
According to UN Res 242 - under which Israel is bound - all Jews must leave occupied Palestine because it is illegal for them to be there
And when did he become Spokesperson of Israel?
http://www.palestineremembered.com/