| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| Beilin: Hamas prisoner were bargaining chips |
| 2006-09-13 |
 Meretz party chair, MK Yossi Beilin praised on Tuesday the decision to release 18 senior Hamas members from Israeli jails. "From the very start it was clear that their imprisonment was primarily as a bargaining chip, and not because they posed a risk, and that is something which goes against the very norm of legality in Israel," Beilin said. The Hamas members were arrested after the kidnapping of Cpl. Gilad Shalit in June. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #8 I think an eye for an eye is always fair. Or even 10 teeth for a tooth |
| Posted by: SwissTex 2006-09-13 15:52 |
| #7 “And THAT invited further abductions.” I’m a little slow on the uptake so let me see if I follow. Palestinians abduct a soldier in hopes of a prisoner swap…Bad. Israel abducts Palestinian officials as trade-bait…Good. The reason they’re not the same thing is because Israel took their captives after the Palestinians took theirs first. (Pay no attention to the existing prisoners Israel has or if the Palestinians take more prisoners...otherwise it gets really convoluted.) And so if there is an exchange it really isn’t a “prisoner swap” like in the past…it’s more of ah…um…oh yeah…it’s a “good will gesture”. Gotcha! |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-09-13 14:56 |
| #6 Still no. Notice the pattern: Paleos get jailed for terrorist activity. Some other Paleos abduct an Israeli to demand release of prisoners. Israel is squeamish and complies. That has been going on for years. And THAT invited further abductions. And they will continue, regardless what Israel does. So, maybe a change of the stratagem may work out to something different? |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-09-13 13:09 |
| #5 "The only problem is that Israel does not have a clear legal mechanism to address this situation. But there is no equivalence here." How about this for a clear legal mechanism? If these people…yes people (not some ambiguous association like "government") are responsible, then try them for the abduction, convict them, and throw them in the jug. If they are a “security threat”, as first asserted, then do the same. Hell…if they are indeed security threats…pop their melons from half a mile away and call it a day. But abductions as a negotiation tactic are the same no matter who the actors are. And if you hadn’t noticed this type of thing only invites more of the same in the future. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-09-13 12:36 |
| #4 DepotGuy, no. Hamas "government" is responsible in the criminal activity of a hostage taking. Don't tell me that if they wanted, Shalit would be released the next minute. The only problem is that Israel does not have a clear legal mechanism to address this situation. But there is no equivalence here. |
| Posted by: twobyfour 2006-09-13 11:17 |
| #3 “Who f&cking cares?” The same people who denounce terrorist organizations for using similar extortion tactics. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2006-09-13 10:16 |
| #2 Don't like it? Turnabout is fair play. Personally, I love it. I wonder what percentage of the Palestinians and other muslim observers get it. |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-09-13 05:19 |
| #1 From the very start it was clear that their imprisonment was primarily as a bargaining chip, and not because they posed a risk Who f&cking cares? Get the soldiers back. That's all that matters. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-09-13 00:28 |