Mishka says "Rhys, this Arab Israeli can see that Gilad Shalit wasn't a "legitimate" target. Why can't you?!"

Is that supposed to be some kind of argument on what is or isn't a legitimate military target? I'm sure I could find a Jew who agrees with me. That doesn't make me right, even though I am right.
When the Nazi's were occupying France, were the German soldiers a legitimate military target? Likewise with the Japanese when they were occupying China? What about the Americans occupying Iraq? The Israeli's certainly felt that the occupying British forces were a legitimate target when they were fighting for independence. They committed numerous "terrorist" attacks against British military targets.

If you carry out a military occupation of another peoples land, you must expect to be targeted.

If you're fighting a military occupation then the occupying military is the only legitimate target. Why can't you see that?

Rhys, I assume by “occupation” you are referring to the areas commonly known as the “occupied territories” such as the Gaza Strip and that you are not implying that Israel should not exist at all (which is the argument of those you seem to be defending). I need to clarify this, because if you take the latter position there is no point in continuing the discussion.

Gilad Shalit was abducted from Israel. He was not in any occupied territory and therefore was not part of an occupying force. His detention was generally considered contrary to humanitarian law, by the UN, ICRC, and Human Rights Watch, for example. Amnesty and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights called it “illegal” and “inhumane”.

As for the “occupation” itself, perhaps you should cast your memory back to 2005 and 2006 when Israel unilaterally decided to withdraw from Gaza. Whether it was sufficient or not, Israel uprooted 25 Jewish civilian settlements as well as IDF installations. How did the Palestinians react to this gesture of goodwill? How did they react to the withdrawal of the “occupying force”? They fired hundreds of rockets at Israel and they abducted Gilad Shalit. These Palestinian attacks were AFTER the occupation had ended, and they were not against a military occupation force. And what did the Palestinians do with their newfound freedom? They fought amongst themselves in a bloody conflict that cost hundreds of Palestinian lives. They elected Hamas, a terrorist organisation, and Palestinians now live in a repressive society in which human rights are blatantly ignored. Frying pan into the fire, eh?! I know that I’d prefer to live under Israeli rule, but you don’t seem to agree. Perhaps you should ask a woman or a gay which they’d prefer – the strict Muslim government of Hamas or liberal secular government of Israel?

Lindy,

Thank you for your reference. I'll quote parts,as it seems the text you supplied has the following qualifications, in many not insignificant places.

‘The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.’

‘There shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by a law befitting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.’

So you see Israeli Law is predicated on Jewish values... which are contained in it’s bible ... which are often quite different to the Christian values that predicate much of Western Liberal Democratic justice.
As an example, one of the classics is the 'First (Seven)of the Jewish Laws Noahide:
Murder: "Furthermore, I will demand your blood, for [the taking of] your lives, I shall demand it [even] from any wild animal. From man too, I will demand of each person's brother the blood of man. He who spills the blood of man, by man his blood shall be spilt; for in the image of God He made man." (9:5–6)"'

Ah! To champion homework is admirable.

But as I said earlier Western Liberal Democratic Justice in it's courts extends protection to all, even non-citizens ... Israeli Law doesn't.
You have no counter to that simplicity. And it begs the question why would westerners abandon their historical and deeply thought out principles simply to support an oppressive regime because of some ancient long abandoned claimed 'shared' tradition?

Miska Gora, Martin Ibn Warriq

Here is the completion of quote of Ratzinger,

"‘The message of hope contained in the books of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament has been appropriated and continued in different ways by Jews and Christians.'"
“'After centuries of antagonism, we now see it as our task to bring these two ways of rereading the biblical texts – the Christian way and the Jewish way – into dialogue with one another, if we are to understand God’s will and his word aright” (Jesus of Nazareth. Part Two: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, pp. 33f.).’"

That can only be interpreted as attempting to reconcile the traditions of both religions, which Ratzinger explicitly states are quite different. I doubt very much whether the Christian Churches would be sufficiently flexible to abandon the tenets contained in the Christian tradition of the Sermon on the Mount or incorporate or even condone the traditional Jewish tenets of the Noahide.

No Christianity and Judaism have less in common than Judaism and Islam in their source traditions. And please if you wish to argue your case using ancient and superceded traditions then isn't it apparent that the same argument should be applied to Jews and Arabs as both are semetic people descended from the same stock ... and both use very similar books.

Please note the attempt at reconciliation was initiated by Christians and is a very basic Christian behaviour.

Lindy, Mishka Gora and Martin Ibn Warriq,

Compare the following with Ratzinger then assess the monumental task he faces as well as your monumental misunderstandings of the divergent traditions of the two religions.

Rabbi Berkovits said

‘Judaism is Judaism because it rejects Christianity, and Christianity is Christianity because it rejects Judaism’
Disputation and Dialogue: Readings in the Jewish Christian Encounter, Ed. F. E. Talmage, Ktav, 1975, p. 291.

Jacob Neusner said

‘The two faiths stand for different people talking about different things to different people’
(1990), Jews and Christians: The Myth of a Common Tradition. New York and London: Trinity Press International and SCM Press. p. 28

"Law professor Stephen M. Feldman identifies talk of Judeo-Christian tradition as supersessionism:
'Once one recognizes that Christianity has historically engendered antisemitism, then this so-called tradition appears as dangerous Christian dogma (at least from a Jewish perspective). For Christians, the concept of a Judeo-Christian tradition comfortably suggests that Judaism progresses into Christianity—that Judaism is somehow completed in Christianity. The concept of a Judeo-Christian tradition flows from the Christian theology of supersession, whereby the Christian covenant (or Testament) with God supersedes the Jewish one. Christianity, according to this myth, reforms and replaces Judaism. The myth therefore implies, first, that Judaism needs reformation and replacement, and second, that modern Judaism remains merely as a "relic". Most importantly the myth of the Judeo-Christian tradition insidiously obscures the real and significant differences between Judaism and Christianity.[]'"

Really the only quote you can supply that supports continuing traditional links between Christianity and Judaism is from Joseph Ratzinger ... you should assess his history.

http://atheism.about.com/od/benedictxvi/i/RatzingerNazi.htm

I tend to support Austin Clines conclusions. They are very kind and allow a great degree of understanding and ... Christian forgiveness.

@imajulianutter, where does it say Israeli law only applies to citizens? I applies to all PERSONS: "Fundamental human rights in Israel are founded upon recognition of the value of the human being, the sanctity of human life, and the principle that all persons are free; these rights shall be upheld in the spirit of the principles set forth in the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel."

I really can't be bothered commenting any more. You just see what you want to see. You don't discuss, you rant. I don't normally comment on things on the internet and now I remember why....