Gilad Shalit is free

They didn't have to.....
 
Given how good the Mossad is and how accurate Israel claims their precision strikes against terrorist leaders are, I'm actualy sort of amazed Israel didn't utilize those resources to free him.
 
Given how good the Mossad is and how accurate Israel claims their precision strikes against terrorist leaders are, I'm actualy sort of amazed Israel didn't utilize those resources to free him.

They would have to know where he was, and I think that is easier said than done - not to mention physically getting hold of the man, which is similar.
 
Given how good the Mossad is and how accurate Israel claims their precision strikes against terrorist leaders are, I'm actualy sort of amazed Israel didn't utilize those resources to free him.
I guess they didn't have the appropriate access to a willing or blackmailed Palestinian for a change.
 
The only card you have left to play now is accusing him of anti-semitism. Rut-roh.

OK, again: who are you and when did you hack into amadeus' account?

Anyway, he asked a legitimate question: if these guys being released are terrible killers of Israeli civilians, why would their government trade over 1,000 of them for one of their conscripts?

You people somehow got the insane notion that releasing these criminals will noticeably endanger Israel - where did you get that from? I noticed it's mostly the Americans repeating this argument - are you really that scared of the big bear terrorists?

Are they dangerous? Some of them are, yes. However, Israel made it sure they're being released under conditions that will minimize any danger posed by them. In any case, the risks in this case are greatly outweighed by the benefits.

With deals like these, I'm starting to wonder where Israel got its reputation for being so committed to its self-preservation. :confused:

If it is to survive, its population must believe in the country they live in. A country that leaves its citizen soldiers rot in terrorist dungeons when there is a way to get them out with acceptable risk doesn't look very reassuring.

Nivi told you that it is important for the morale of the army that every soldier knows that the country will do whatever it takes to save them if they fall into enemy hands. The civilians also feel very strongly about this, since Gilad represents what practically every Israeli family has an experience with - kids doing their service in the military. They need to know that individual soldiers aren't just pawns to be thrown away and sacrificed by an uncaring government.

If you don't get it, then you should perhaps question your own country's practice. Americans are so obsessed with moralizing about everything that sometimes they act like complete idiots.
 
Good for Gilad Shalit, bad for Israel.

What prevents Hamas from capturing another soldier and asking for more prisoners? Heck, I'm sure that is what the Palestinians are chanting in celebration.
 
OK, again: who are you and when did you hack into amadeus' account?
What is this even supposed to mean? My views changed to become more consistent, not less, and in doing so that means jettisoning my romanticization of the Israelis as being these heroic defenders of freedom against Arab tyranny. It means recognizing that maybe the Israelis are not infallible and that the Arabs have some legitimate grievances. It also means instituting a true pro-American policy of neutrality, full free trade, and non-intervention.
 
I am giving the benefit of the doubt to both individuals. Both are innocent until actually proven guilty in a fair trial with no torture involved, so there is no "double standard" there. That occurs by only being able to see one side of the obvious atrocities being committed by both groups, regardless of the specific individuals who are guilty of those crimes.

Of course it is a double standard. I'm not suggesting you wouldn't give both sides due process. The first thing that comes into your mind when discussing Palestinian prisoners being released is they may very well have been tortured and were probably innocent anyway. It is a good thing. When you hear about an Israeli soldier being released you think he could very well have commited atrocities and any torture he probably suffered over five years goes unmentioned. You clearly are seeing this situation from a pro-palestinian perspective and you judge their actions differently than you do Israel's.
 
My position has always been that I blame both sides for the obvious atrocities which continue to occur. You obviously have no idea what "first comes into" my "mind", and you are just making stuff up about my opinions. Why don't you discuss the topic instead of me?

Most Palestinians arrested by the Israeli government are tortured whether they actually did anything or not. Engineers and clerics in particular are some of their most favorite victims whether they are even suspected of any "terrorist" activity or not. That is a fact. Both sides obviously do it, but the number of Israeli victims are clearly far less because the Palestinians have no ability to detain them other than the rare kidnapping victim.
 
My position has always been that I blame both sides for the obvious atrocities which continue to occur. You obviously have no idea what "first comes into" my "mind", and you are just making stuff up about my opinions. Why don't you discuss the topic instead of me?

And most Palestinians arrested by the Israeli government are tortured, whether they actually did anything or not. Engineers and clerics in particular are some of their most favorite victims whether they are even suspected of any "terrorist" activity or not. That is a fact.

I quoted what you posted in this thread. I'll do it again:

"Taking part" is very vague, especially after the "confession" was gained by torture. Does that mean he was in the vicinity when the Israeli authorities arrested every Arab nearby? Does that mean he may have known that an attack may occur and didn't notify the Israeli authorities about it? We simply don't know.

Many Palestinians in Israeli prisons are political prisoners. It is obvious that the Israeli government typically wants retribution from all Palestinians for the actual crimes of the few. They don't seem to care whether the person was directly involved or not. Merely being a suspected member of Hamas or even a trained engineer is usually sufficient reason enough.

and this:

The man was a soldier who may very well have participated in a number of atrocities himself.

Do those sound like you have a balanced approach to those issues? You provided no evidence he commited atrocities. It's practically libel. Once more no post about the soldier's conditions for five years which i'm sure were terrific. You make the occasional post about not taking sides, but nobody reading these forums could come to any other conclusion then that you support the Palestinians over the Israelis. That's fine. Just don't pretend otherwise.
 
how can 1 conscript command the price of the release of 1027 Palestinians many of whom were being held for alleged terrorist activities? the calculus of how much one life is worth seems a bit off in this trade. this would make some sense if the 1027 prisoners were being detained without charges having been filed yet after years of imprisonment (and probably tactical interrog and torture) because if that's the case, their release would have been a matter of course anyway.
 
Do those sound like you have a balanced approach to those issues? You provided no evidence he commited atrocities. It's practically libel. Once more no post about the soldier's conditions for five years which i'm sure were terrific. You make the occasional post about not taking sides, but nobody reading these forums could come to any other conclusion then that you support the Palestinians over the Israelis. That's fine. Just don't pretend otherwise.
You can't get any more "balanced" than to blame both sides in these matters because they both have clearly committed numerous atrocities and human rights violations.

Once again, I never claimed Shalit committed atrocities. I stated it was possible he did so because so many Israeli soldiers have done so in the past. That is a fact and it is clearly not "libel".

I don't have to "pretend" anything because I have made my opinions in these matters quite well known. Once again, discuss the topic instead of personally attacking me.
 
You can't get any more "balanced" than to blame both sides in these matters because they both have clearly committed numerous atrocities and human rights violations.

Once again, I never claimed Shalit committed atrocities. I stated it was possible he did so because so many Israeli soldiers have done so in the past. That is a fact and it is clearly not "libel".

I don't have to "pretend" anything because I have made my opinions in these matters quite well known. Once again, discuss the topic instead of personally attacking me.

This has gone on long enough so this will be it for me. I'm not attacking you personally. You have your opinion and that's fine. You just refuse to admit you prefer one side which i find curious given everyone else here can see it. Also this needs to be said. Because Israeli soldiers have commited atrocities in the past it is not fair to say any given soldier may very well have done so. If i told you i served in the military would you think it fair to say i may have commited atrocities as well because other members of the US military have? I would hope not. I would prefer evidence before casually imlying such a thing.
 
I'm really amazed Shalit survived his ordeal.

I'm very happy for him & his family. I hope he'll be able to make up for time lost & have a good, long life.

Somber salute to my Israeli brothers & sisters for once again being willing to pay a terrible price to redeem one of our own.
 
I find it hard to believe that so many of you are alienated by the concept that a country will value the life of one of its soldiers higher than one of the enemy's. This is true especially for Americans. Most western countries would rather accept higher enemy losses than endangering the life of one of their own men any other day. I know I would, too. Why shouldn't they trade one of their men for lots of other guys, then? Because it's immoral? Oh, come on... War is sad enough, and if you can save one of your chaps, you should do so. Especially in a case like this. Shalit isn't just one man. He's a symbol. Return him and your people will get the impression that the saying "No one gets left behind" has actual meaning.
 
Back
Top Bottom