Prisoner exchange talks in Egypt

Khalid Mishaal, the exiled Hamas political leader, has arrived in Cairo for talks with Egyptian officials trying to arrange a prisoner exchange with Israel.

"The delegation, led by Khalid Mishaal, will follow up on Egyptian efforts to reach a deal acceptable to the Palestinian people," Izzat al-Rishq, a Hamas spokesman, said on Wednesday night.

Hamas had demanded that Israel free 1,400 Palestinian prisoners, including all women and children, in exchange for the release of an Israeli soldier seized by Palestinian fighters in a cross border raid in June.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4B29BD12-F313-44EE-BDB6-FB6405EC323B.htm

and children, I wonder what they did, if they are being held without charges. If it's anything like Israel's policy of bulldozing houses, then I can see why Hamas would want them freed.

women cant "carry bombs?....blow up civilians?....kids 16-17 cant be suicide bombers? carry bombs? attempt to stab people at checkpoints?

(you should read the news more....)

so arresting is no good?....and killing those who want to kill us is also no good...guess we might as well just do what we did in the past: lower our heads and hope they dont cut it off this time....

nice suggestion.

charged with anything to do with suicide bombing or car bombs or anything of the sort. A very high percentage don't even have charges against them.

"Palestinian Prisoners in Israeli Detention

Since the beginning of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories in 1967, over 650,000 Palestinians have been detained by Israel. This forms approximately 20% of the total Palestinian population in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT). As the majority of those detained are male, the number of Palestinians detained forms approximately 40% of the total male Palestinian population in the OPT. "

"Administrative detention is indefinitely renewable under military regulations. A detainee may be given an administrative detention order for a period of between 1 – 6 months, after which the order may be renewed. Administrative detention is based on secret evidence brought forward during military tribunals, to which neither the detainee nor his/her lawyer have access to. One of the longest Palestinian administrative detainees remained in custody for over 8 years, without ever being charged.

Children

Under military regulations in force in the OPT, a child over the age of 16 is considered an adult, contrary to the defined age of a child as under 18 in the Convention of the Rights of the Child, to which Israel is a signatory. In practice, Palestinian children may be charged and sentenced in military courts beginning at the age of 12.

Between the ages of 12-14, children can be sentenced for offences for a period of up to six months – meaning that a child accused of throwing a stone can be sent to prison for six months;
After the age of 14, Palestinian children are tried as adults, in violation of international law;
There are no juvenile courts and children are often held and serve their sentences in cells with criminal prisoners and are often not separated from adults, also in violation of international law.
Prison conditions

Prison conditions in Israeli military detention camps are inhumane. Detainees are held in overcrowded prison tents that are often threadbare and do not provide for adequate shelter against extreme weather. Prisoners are not provided adequate food rations, neither in quantity nor quality, nor provided with clean clothes or adequate cleaning supplies. Many of the detainees currently being held in military detention camps were injured during their arrests and have not been provided the necessary medical attention, like those who suffer from chronic illnesses.

Access to lawyers

Palestinian lawyers from the OPT are not permitted any special travel privileges in order to defend their clients. They are subjected to the same travel restrictions as all Palestinians in the OPT. Those lawyers who are able to access their clients have extremely high case loads and are often subjected to strip searches and humiliating treatment when visiting their clients. "

link:

http://www.palestinemonitor.org/new_web/factsheet_prisoners.htm

cite Palestinian Monitor as an unbiased source for facts, than I would the Jewish Virtual Library. What they claim may be true, but surely you can come up with a source that's a little less biased.

inaccurate about this report above that is in anyway inconsistent with the whole range of human rights reports from independent sources.

The International Committee of the Red Cross has a fair deal of detail about detention of Palestinians in Israeli prisons in their annual report which is available on a PDF file - link: http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/6PPDX6/$FILE/icrc_ar_05_israel.pdf?OpenElement



"Administrative detention is detention without charge or trial, authorized by administrative order rather than by judicial decree. It is allowed under international law, but, because of the serious injury to due process rights inherent in this measure and the obvious danger of abuse, international law has placed rigid restrictions on its application. Administrative detention is intended to prevent the danger posed to state security by a particular individual. However, Israel has never defined the criteria for what constitutes "state security."
Israel's use of administrative detention blatantly violates these restrictions. Over the years, Israel held Palestinians in prolonged detention without trying them and without informing them of the suspicions against them. While detainees may appeal the detention, neither they nor their attorneys are allowed to see the evidence. Israel has therefore made a charade out of the entire system of procedural safeguards in both domestic and international law regarding the right to liberty and due process. "

link: http://www.btselem.org/English/Administrative%5FDetention/



"Israel holds in prison more than 9,000 Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The vast majority are held in prisons situated inside Israel 's sovereign territory, and not in the Occupied Territories .

Holding these prisoners and detainees in Israel flagrantly breaches international humanitarian law, which prohibits the transfer of civilians, including detainees and prisoners, from the occupied territory to the territory of the occupying state. Israel 's disregard for this prohibition is one of the main reasons that the prisoners and their families are unable to exercise their right to visits in a reasonable manner.

This report sheds light on the many difficulties and the suffering faced by the prisoners' families, residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in their efforts to visit their relatives imprisoned in Israel .

Although Israel has the obligation to enable residents of the Occupied Territories to exercise their right to visit their relatives imprisoned in Israel , the task has been performed, since 1969, by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Relatives from the Occupied Territories who want to visit can do so only on the designated visiting days and on the transportation that the ICRC organizes, provided they received the relevant permit from the Israeli military authorities. "

http://www.btselem.org/english/Publications/Summaries/200609_Barred_from_Contact.asp

is also agenda driven. I'm giving you a hard time about this because anytime someone uses a source that's considered pro-Israeli, howls go up. Sauce, goose, gander. That in no way means that I condone Israel's policies regarding Palestinian detentions, but I am trying to make a point. I know we're all hypocrites, but it would be nice to keep it to a minimum.

and although I am admittedly a partisan on this issue -- I am not so ideological that I will proclaim the old leftist axiom "that to be neutral is to collaborate". However, anyone who writes about this issue is going to be accused of taking sides even when they are independent.

Anyway, I'll try Amnesty International-- although even they get accused of being partisan:

"Administrative detention: Despair, uncertainty and lack of due process

INTRODUCTION

Thousands of people have been detained under administrative detention orders in Israel and the Occupied Territories. In practice, this means the detainee spends months and sometimes years in prison without having been tried and without knowing the details of the charges against him. It means shattered hopes as detention orders come up to their expiry date, but are then renewed for another term. Families and detainees alike despair, never knowing when release will occur. This procedure causes such suffering that the use of administrative detention has been referred to by one administrative detainee as "another form of torture".

This report will concentrate primarily on case histories and statements from administrative detainees, quoting extensively from letters written by them. A short background on the practice of administrative detention in Israel and the Occupied Territories is provided, but for a more detailed legal history see the report Israel and the Occupied Territories: Administrative detention during the Palestinian intifada (AI Index: MDE 15/06/89) published by Amnesty International in June 1989.

BACKGROUND

Administrative detention is a procedure under which detainees are held without charge or trial. No criminal charges are filed and there is no intention of bringing the detainee to trial. In Israel and East Jerusalem administrative detention orders are issued by the Minister of Defence; in the Occupied Territories (except for East Jerusalem, annexed by Israel in 1967) they are issued by military commanders. By the detention order, a detainee is given a specific term of detention, which in February 1995 was prolonged to allow a maximum period of one year. On or before the expiry of the term, the detention order is frequently renewed. This process can be continued indefinitely.

In the Occupied Territories, the detainee is not given a judicial hearing unless the individual detention order is for longer than six months, in which case there is a judicial review after six months have elapsed. Detention orders of six months or less are renewed without a judicial hearing.

Administrative detainees have the right to appeal every detention order, initially before a military judge and ultimately to the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice. The detainees are entitled to legal counsel of their choice. However, in the vast majority of cases, neither the lawyer nor the detainee is informed of the details of the evidence against him since the court is authorized to choose how much information to disclose based on grounds of security. There is therefore no possibility for the defence lawyer to cross-examine witnesses or even to inquire about their existence. As a result of these ineffective procedures for the reviewing of administrative detention orders, Palestinian detainees have been boycotting court hearings since August 1996.

Some Palestinians are served with an administrative detention order directly upon arrest. Many have alleged that they suffered torture or ill-treatment during interrogation and were afterwards given an administrative detention order rather than being charged and tried. Amnesty International fears that in those cases administrative detention orders allowing the possibility of indefinite political detention may reflect a failure of the General Security Service (GSS or Shabak) to obtain evidence or confessions which would make possible the conviction of suspects by a Military Tribunal. Others who were charged, tried and served prison terms have been placed in administrative detention immediately or very shortly after the expiry of the sentence. Others have been taken for interrogation by the GSS during the time that they were serving an administrative detention order, and were returned to administrative detention afterwards. Some have reportedly been tortured during the time in interrogation."

link:

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150031997?open&of=ENG-ISR

And yes, I think AI is a much better source to use.

does investigate, criticize and publicly condemns things they find to be human right abuses from the Palestinian Authority and Palestinian political groups. Even Allan Dershowitz is full of praise for b'tselem. Although he would never quote their reports for obvious reasons.

and i would say in many ways i also doubt the good intentions of the IDF...however as one who has actually been part of some arrest teams i can add that it is a very messy and gray area.

i can also add that instead of taking the "easy way out" and shooting them, risks are taken to arrest them....that may not mean much to some, but to other who are involved it means a great deal. A lot of resources are spent in doing just that. Of course, they may all be innocent.......i suppose.....

but in reality your not going to find definitive answers, proof such as what happens in civil courts nor the justice that you would find in Chechniya or dfur.

A 14yr old with an AK47 is actually far more dangerous than that of an adult...so too with a moltov cocktails.....he may be a kid, but hes also a very dangerous. Patting him on the head and letting him go is not just stuiped its immoral as he will try again.....(well at least for us israelis its stuiped)

I'm giving you a hard time about this because anytime someone uses a source that's considered pro-Israeli, howls go up. Sauce, goose, gander.

B'tselem is actually one source where the agenda is human rights of BOTH Israelis and Palestinians...

You neglect to mention (as though it's something that bad by using the term 'howls') that while what you say is true, of course anytime someone uses a source that's considered pro-Palestinian, 'howls' go up. The forum is totally full of them and I can supply you with links if you are claiming that it's a one-sided thing that happens or one happens much more than the other. So if the point yr making is that b'tselem is biased against Israel or that claims of bias are one-sided in this forum, I think yr incorrect. Why do you find AI acceptable and not B'Tselem?

Both sides in an argument can be expected to say those things.

It is your inability and/or refusal to back your claims up when fairly challenged. For example, I posed a question to you the other day that would have shown - had you the guts to answer it - that you are biased against Israel.

Instead of answering the question you chose to weasel out. I'll repeat the question here in case anyone else on the anti-Israel bench has the guts to answer it.

If the IDF attacked settlers on the WB who were firing rockets at a nearby Palestinian village - and some of the settlers' children were killed by an errant tank shot . .

a) . . was the IDF wrong to use military force to stop the settlers' rockets that were killing and injuring Palestinian civilians?

b) . . was the IDF morally responsible for the settler's children's deaths?

Anyone?

So, you say a) Yes, the IDF was wrong to use military force to stop the settlers' rockets that were killing and injuring Palestinian civilians.

Apparently you then think it's OK for the settlers to continue firing their rockets and killing innocent Palestinians who are doing nothing to the settlers. Is that correct? Do the settlers get to kill a certain number of Palestinians before you would think the IDF is justified in stopping them? Or, do they just get to keep killing them until they're all dead or leave their homes?

You say, b) The IDF are absolutely morally responsible for the settler's children's deaths. If they don't attack the settlers to stop the rockets, since they are in control of the territory and are legally responsible for what happens there, are they then responsible for the deaths of the Palestinians that result from the rocket attacks that they could have prevented?

Can you answer these simple questions and explain your reasoning?

It depends on what you mean by military force. If you mean sitting in a tank and firing at them from there, when there is a large probability of collateral damage, then they should not shoot at them. I'd much prefer the IDF to go in on foot and actually seek out the offenders.

And no, your next step does not follow. It's absurd. That I believe they should wait to act until there have been a minimum number of Palestinian casulaties? No. It's up to the IDF to hunt down the perpetrators such that the absolute minimum (preferably none) number of casualties occur in the process.

You assume that "attacking" them is the only way. And by that I again assume you mean attacking them from afar, as in from a tank or in a helicopter. I don't. It's the IDF's responibility to be sure they don't miss, that they only get the offenders. They have to find anothe way. Unfortunately, that means putting themselves in danger and going in on foot. That's their job and their duty.

And what ever happened to arresting them and trying them for their crimes? How did we skip that step and go right to attacking them, possibily killing them without due process?

Quite frankly I find these questions insulting. Clearly what you were going for was that I (or someone here) would believe the IDF should shoot to kill and consequences be damned, the Israeli settlers, the same way they do Palestinians. Sorry to disappoint.

I stated that an errant shell caused the children's death. I made it clear that the IDF were not "shooting to kill" and the "consequences be damned".

I set up a reasonable hypothetical where the morality of actions could be questioned and examined. Instead of answering the questions you are just refusing to accept the hypothetical. That's not much different than saying you don't have to answer bigots.

You have obviously shown that you have no intention of addressing the clear moral questions posed by my example.

Just another pathetic weasel.

PS - Doesn't anyone from your side have the courage to actually address my questions - instead of challenging the hypothetical stuation in which they are placed?

I guess I missed that initially. Again, my post stated that any attack from inside a tank was excessive and they would be responsible for the deaths. Tanks are meant place preferance on the soldiers' lives, not the civilians killed by "stray" bullets. So yes, in your example they are responsible.

I actually did answer your question. You are too blind to see it.

. . maybe we can actually get somewhere.

The hypothetical was set up to create a clear moral dilemma. The kind that exist hundreds of times a day for the IDF trying to stop the Kassams.

The situation spelled out that the IDF could either use the weapon they had (imagine any weapon you like, it makes no difference)- or not stop the rockets and Palestinian children die. That's the moral dilemma.

You dishonestly try to evade the undrlying question by changing my hypothetical. You jump in and say that they had other choices. My question assumed that they had no other choice. I'm saying if they had no others choice and that's what happened - then who's to blame.

It's my hypothetical. You can answer it or evade. What's it going to be?

BTW - when someone sets up a hypothetical in an argument then you should accept the hypothetical unless you can show where it is logically inconsistent with the real world situation that I am comparing it to.

It is quite arrogant of you, who has never been in the military and who has never had anyone even shoot at you, sitting behind your keyboard in the US - claiming that the IDF would never face such a choice, between taking a chance on killing innocent civilians on one side or stopping the deaths of other innocent civilians on the other.

I'm sure such decisions are occurring every day in Gaza. Yet, because it would reveal a hypocritical double standard in your position - you refuse to deal with the moral question that my hypothetical was designed to show.

Not only is that a weasel - it's a particularly cowardly one.

Two days have past and you haven't responded so I'll assume my question was too tough for you to answer. To be as fair as possible then, I'll accept your new conditions. Just to recap, you stated that the IDF were . .

a) . . wrong to use military force to stop the settlers' rockets that were killing and injuring Palestinian civilians?

b) . . absolutely morally responsible for the settler's children's deaths?

You said they should have gone in on foot and "arrested" those shooting the rockets. But, that's not very realistic. After all, the IDF has been "on foot" in Gaza now for several weeks and the rockets are still being fired and are still killing Israeli citizens. When the IDF actually traps some of the rocket shooters Palestinian women come and rescue them. If any of the women get killed you yell about the IDF murderers again.

So, maybe the IDF has been following your accusations here at DU's I/P forum and don't want to be called murderers for trying too vigorously to arrest the settlers who are shooting rockets into the nearby PA village. And of course, just like in Biet Hanoun, some rockets continue to fly, although maybe not as many as before, and innocent Palestinian civilians continue to die from that rocket fire.

Now, based on your modified scenario, the questions are . .

a) . . was the IDF wrong to refrain from using adequate military force to stop the settlers' rockets that were killing and injuring Palestinian civilians?

b) . . is the IDF now morally responsible for Palestinian civilian's deaths caused by the rockets that the IDF failed to adequately stop?

I really hope you honestly try to address the moral implications posed by these questions. Unfortunately, I don't think you or anyone else on the "always blame Israel" side here are willing to do anything that would place the blame on those who are shooting the rockets to start with - the place where anyone with any sense of moral justice would put the blame for all the deaths on both sides that resulted from either the rockets or the attempts to stop them.

But at least those following this thread who are interested in understanding the moral dimensions of this conflict will see which side is interested in addressing these difficult questions - and which side continues to use this forum as an outlet for their desire to blame Israel for whatever happens, no matter what.

You might try something that has some remote relationship to the OP http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x156194#156248 (mind you, talking about Gaza in a thread where the OP is about Gaza is falling well within the 'has some remote relationship' category...

What's that sauce, goose, gander line that was being used in this thread? ;)

. . but I was replying to your post where you were decrying the "howls of protest" that arise on claims of biased sources. It's called a subthread. If you don't like where they go - don't start them.

btw, who said anything about me not liking where sub-threads go? What a load of absolute nonsense...

charges. This is wrong. End of story.

What about those who are being held legally? Should they also be released?

3 IDF troops wounded by 64-yr-old female suicide bomber!

As for Hamas wanting them freed....:rofl: They had that option! They turned it down!