Dear Mishka,

Thank you for your frank and open reply.

The Muamar brothers were not in the list of the initial 477. Perhaps they may be among the others yet to be released.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/10/2011101675220436780.html

It is a rather extraordinary list. As an Australian who is use to 25 or 30 years being a life sentence it makes sobering reading.

I am relieved the Shalit family will get to see their son again. I do hope the family visits from Gaza to prisoners held in Israel can now resume after being blocked after the capture of Gilad. It is a tragedy when mothers and fathers are kept from seeing their children for years and years. While the Israeli Supreme Court judges “family visits are not a basic humanitarian need for Gaza residents” most of us I think would feel differently.

I wonder when you say “the Israeli government is committed to doing its "utmost" to bring home those whom it has sent onto the battlefield.” if you would afford the same licence to the Gazan Palestinians knowing it could entail the capture of another soldier?

Unfair to ask I know.

I apologise for calling your article myopic, while it is something I firmly believe I should not have addressed you directly.

Lastly when I read “This is likewise the Judeo-Christian tradition, a noble tradition we trample upon every time we appease Israel's enemies by calling them political prisoners instead of terrorists. It is a tradition we must champion if we truly believe in a just society, human dignity, and "fighting the good fight". It is the tradition of those who perished at Auschwitz… but it is also the tradition of those who eventually defeated the Nazis – the 'premature anti-fascists' of the International Brigades in Spain and the ordinary men and women who vowed with Winston Churchill to "fight on the beaches". So now we must decide whether to embrace our heritage or shamefacedly deny it.” I felt a deep sadness and want to weep.

Perhaps we are best to leave it here.

Have a good life Mishka.

imajulianutter, I am surprised the others have continued to reply to you for so long. (I’m surprised I’m replying too, but then this is my first foray into web debates and the novelty hasn’t quite yet worn off… and I have this quaint notion that you don’t realise how rude, obnoxious and self-defeating your posts are.) Do you want to engage in meaningful discussion where each side considers the points raised by the other thoughtfully, or do you simply want somewhere where you can “mouth off”? If the former, you fail miserably. The others in this thread, including the author, have addressed your concerns seriously and thoughtfully, but each time you have simply ignored them and gone on another tack. That’s not the behaviour of someone who seeks to get to the bottom of an issue – that’s the behaviour of someone who has an agenda and who has a closed mind.

Likewise, that applies to others who have commented here. Even the relatively polite posts, such as the one above by csteele, ask the author to treat the Palestinian prisoners as morally equivalent. But they are not. Gilad Shalit committed no crime and his first public comments expressed his desire for peace. The Palestinians released were terrorists who have vowed to keep killing. You say you don’t support attacks on civilians, but the Palestinian prisoners did conduct attacks on civilians, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation. You have proved the very point of the article – you keep calling terrorists freedom fighters, and you refuse to see the obvious truth that the Palestinian leadership has failed to make any genuine attempts at peace. This deal is a classic example of how lopsided negotiations are.

The author’s main point, that one shouldn’t appease terrorists and that we ought to be outraged at a deal that exchanges one innocent man for 1027 convicted criminals is so elementary and irreproachable that I’m flabbergasted that so many have reacted negatively to it. Don’t we all believe in the value of a human life, or am I just a silly old fool?

Dear Montgomery,

Since you named me in your post I thought a response was in order.

Ms Gora's bio indicates she is one of the 'good folk' therefore I hope I have been circumspect over addressing some of views I found disquieting. I know how irrational I can be about defending members of my own extended family from attacks by others. I do not generally have the stomach for forcefully challenging those who strongly identify as being part of the Jewish family unless they are hell bent on denigrating others.

But if you would humour another silly old fool I was wondering when you talk about "Gilad Shalit committed no crime and his first public comments expressed his desire for peace" where do you  draw your 'moral equivalence' lines?

We do not know what has happened to the Munmar brothers whose kidnapping triggered this whole sorry mess, however if one of the commandos engaged in raid was captured in Gaza on the night would that have been legitimate in your eyes?

While I have long given up accepting anything claimed by either side the track record of IDF statements being retracted when faced with overwhelming contrary evidence is extensive. While they may claim the brother's kidnapping was to foil a plot no evidence to my knowledge has ever been produced. I am just as open to the scenario that they were taken to put pressure on their father. The fact  he was tied and beaten during the raid tends to give this weight.

Hamas have always said his father was a part of their organization but the sons were not.

So if instead of Gilat one of the kidnapping team was taken during their raid into Gaza would that have changed your assessment?

Montgomery,

yes.

Mishka Gora

It was you who started quoting Ratzinger to me. Is that quote now no longer relevant?

Is it my problem you only quoted the part of Ratzinger which supported your view but exempted the part supporting my view and which was the essence of his message?

Why do you still ignore Ratzngers message about the differences between the religions and Lindy's supplied reference to the basis of Israeli Law?

Why is it so many Jewish thinkers have the same position I advocate?

If anything is said that is abusive then rest assured Graham would delete such.

My view is the differences in beliefs and doctrines preclude any attempt at solidarity.

How can you have solidarity with those who absolutely reject the basis of your own religious beliefs? Especially when any examination, even a shallow cursory one, of the essences of both legal systems and social philosophies are so at odds?

You are attempting to equate western liberal democracies and their religious basis with the discrimatory, militarist bigoted regime of the Israelis on the basis of similar religious beliefs.

To advocate such a position is not only absurd but is offensive to both Christians and Liberal Democrats.

Mishka when you point the finger at talking past people you are the very worst example of that... and is perfectly in unison with all the other usual Israeli apologists.

I must say that the Muamar case seems rather shady to me, and while that in itself is an undesirable situation it makes it difficult to assess. While I have no doubt that all governments get up to things they shouldn’t, I’m also aware that they have access to intelligence that would make our hair stand on end. So, let me use a similar hypothetical to illustrate.

If Shalit had been one of an IDF team who had kidnapped two Palestinians who were innocent of any crimes (including plotting to commit crimes), then I would not alter my overall assessment because:
a) He was a conscript carrying out orders, who may have genuinely believed whatever story his superiors gave him about the identity of the two Palestinians;
b) One illegal act does not justify another;
c) Even if fully culpable, he would be guilty of kidnap, whereas many of the prisoners are guilty of multiple counts of murder; and
d) He is one man, but he was exchanged for 1027.

It would, therefore, still be a gross act of moral equivalence.

As for the actual hypothetical kidnapping, I would consider it a mitigating circumstance, but not a justification, which I think illustrates one of my greatest concerns about this conflict. I think Jews and Palestinians could get along fairly well, if it weren’t for the long history of antagonism that has been fuelled largely by Arab leaders, both Palestinian and otherwise. (May I recommend Ephraim Karsh’s ‘Palestine Betrayed’?) I also can’t help noting that while Israel does have a significant Arab population who are represented in parliament and so forth, the Palestinians have made no such concession to Jews. Israel has accepted a two-state solution, but the Palestinians have not. It’s clear that the obstacle to a genuine peace process is the Palestinian refusal to recognise Israel’s right to exist. And that I cannot countenance.

imajulianutter, one of your posts WAS “deleted for abuse”, as perhaps should the one above. It’s not the author’s fault you can’t distinguish between religious tradition and religious doctrine.

Could someone please explain to me how come
Hamas had only one Israeli soldier while
the Israelis had over 1,000 Palestinians - and
the deal struck was to exchange one for 1027
between Israel abd Hamas. How come? Did Hamas
only have the one Israeli?
It doesn't add up.