6 ms·

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 cou

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.
      - bawolff 2y ago
        Do you have any evidence for the claim that they "have grabbed people to trade them"? If true, (and the person was not a combatant) that would certainly count as taking a hostage, provided that was the primary reason they detained said person. However if they detained someone primarily for some other purpose and then traded them later, that is a different story. > Also more generally, they hold hostages to compel Palestinians to obey and not resist. If you mean they detained someone who was doing some action or intending to do some action in order to compel other people not to do similar things, that probably doesn't count. If you mean they detained some random person that wasn't involved at all in order to compel someone else to do or not do something, that probably would count.

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.
    - bawolff 2y ago
      Do you have any evidence for the claim that they "have grabbed people to trade them"? If true, (and the person was not a combatant) that would certainly count as taking a hostage, provided that was the primary reason they detained said person. However if they detained someone primarily for some other purpose and then traded them later, that is a different story. > Also more generally, they hold hostages to compel Palestinians to obey and not resist. If you mean they detained someone who was doing some action or intending to do some action in order to compel other people not to do similar things, that probably doesn't count. If you mean they detained some random person that wasn't involved at all in order to compel someone else to do or not do something, that probably would count.