7 ms·

Israel's prisons are full of Palestinian hostages kidnapped from Gaza and the West Bank. Their courts have no jurisdiction over them and have no issue calling a

Israel's prisons are full of Palestinian hostages kidnapped from Gaza and the West Bank. Their courts have no jurisdiction over them and have no issue calling anyone a terrorist.

bawolff 2y ago
A hostage and a prisoner is not the same thing under international law. > Their courts have no jurisdiction over them Israel is the occupying power. International law requires that an occupying power provide law & order, so it does have the authority to persecute people who commit crimes (although they are required to keep the laws the same as they were pre-occupation, with some exceptions). They are also allowed to keep prisoners of war (although i am not sure if hamas counts as that as they are a non-state group). They are allowed to persecute war crimes that enemy combatants commit (as long as they give a fair trial) > have no issue calling anyone a terrorist. The phrase "terrorist" doesn't really have much meaning under international law. Israel is free to call its enemies dirty names if it wants, there isn't any rule against calling your enemies mean names.
- seventhtiger 2y ago
  The phrase terrorist is the pretense Israel uses to kidnap Palestinian children and use them as hostages. Over 800 last year. It's highly relevant. Israel's courts rubberstamp some of the hostage taking, while the rest are on administrative detention without charge or trial. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231120-880-palestinian-children-detained-by-israel-this-year-ngo/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231120-880-palestinian-c...
  - bawolff 2y ago
    While i abhor the practise of long-term administrative detention as being fundamentally unjust, i don't think it would meet the definition of taking hostages under the geneva convention.
    - kombine 2y ago
      Administrative detention is functionally the same as hostage taking and we should call it as such. Just because an Israeli "court" puts a stamp on it doesn't make it any different.
      - bawolff 2y ago
        > Just because an Israeli "court" puts a stamp on it doesn't make it any different. That has nothing to do with why i don't think administrative detention constitutes hostage taking as defined by the geneva convention. Obviously if some hypothetical israeli court approved of hostage taking it would still not be ok.
    - hmcq6 2y ago
      > Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as “hostage”) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organisation, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons to do or to abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage, commits the offence of taking of hostages https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ar/customary-ihl/v2/rule96 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ar/customary-ihl/v2/rule96 It very clearly fits the definition.
      - bawolff 2y ago
        How is administrative detention an attempt by Israel an attempt "to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organisation, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons to do or to abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage" Like if they randomly started grabbing people up in order to trade them, it would very clearly meet the definition, but it doesn't seem like that is what happened.
        seventhtiger 2y ago
        They absolutely have grabbed people to trade them. The OP article mentions the trade. Every ceasefire in the history of this conflict has had a hostage exchange, or disingenuously "hostages for prisoners". They know it was coming and they kidnapped people for it. Also more generally, they hold hostages to compel Palestinians to obey and not resist.

Israel's prisons are full of Palestinian hostages kidnapped from Gaza and the West Bank. Their courts have no jurisdiction over them and have no issue calling anyone a terrorist.

bawolff 2y ago

A hostage and a prisoner is not the same thing under international law. > Their courts have no jurisdiction over them Israel is the occupying power. International law requires that an occupying power provide law & order, so it does have the authority to persecute people who commit crimes (although they are required to keep the laws the same as they were pre-occupation, with some exceptions). They are also allowed to keep prisoners of war (although i am not sure if hamas counts as that as they are a non-state group). They are allowed to persecute war crimes that enemy combatants commit (as long as they give a fair trial) > have no issue calling anyone a terrorist. The phrase "terrorist" doesn't really have much meaning under international law. Israel is free to call its enemies dirty names if it wants, there isn't any rule against calling your enemies mean names.

seventhtiger 2y ago
The phrase terrorist is the pretense Israel uses to kidnap Palestinian children and use them as hostages. Over 800 last year. It's highly relevant. Israel's courts rubberstamp some of the hostage taking, while the rest are on administrative detention without charge or trial. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231120-880-palestinian-children-detained-by-israel-this-year-ngo/ https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231120-880-palestinian-c...
- bawolff 2y ago
  While i abhor the practise of long-term administrative detention as being fundamentally unjust, i don't think it would meet the definition of taking hostages under the geneva convention.
  - kombine 2y ago
    Administrative detention is functionally the same as hostage taking and we should call it as such. Just because an Israeli "court" puts a stamp on it doesn't make it any different.
    - bawolff 2y ago
      > Just because an Israeli "court" puts a stamp on it doesn't make it any different. That has nothing to do with why i don't think administrative detention constitutes hostage taking as defined by the geneva convention. Obviously if some hypothetical israeli court approved of hostage taking it would still not be ok.
  - hmcq6 2y ago
    > Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as “hostage”) in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organisation, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons to do or to abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage, commits the offence of taking of hostages https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ar/customary-ihl/v2/rule96 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ar/customary-ihl/v2/rule96 It very clearly fits the definition.
    - bawolff 2y ago
      How is administrative detention an attempt by Israel an attempt "to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organisation, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons to do or to abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage" Like if they randomly started grabbing people up in order to trade them, it would very clearly meet the definition, but it doesn't seem like that is what happened.
      - seventhtiger 2y ago
        They absolutely have grabbed people to trade them. The OP article mentions the trade. Every ceasefire in the history of this conflict has had a hostage exchange, or disingenuously "hostages for prisoners". They know it was coming and they kidnapped people for it. Also more generally, they hold hostages to compel Palestinians to obey and not resist.