Talk:Gilad Shalit/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Photo

That same badly-lit photo of Gilad Shalit in uniform seems to be everywhere. Here's another (family) photo of him from a Yahoo news article: http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20060628/capt.7c98e1da06db41199f2285c915c3ee8d.mideast_israel_palestinians_jrl818.jpg?x=380&y=259&sig=GvQemex27hbdA2gQHcX8ag-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.111.187 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 29 June 2006

The present photo is perhaps more relevant to this article, as it shows him in a military situation. Rest 22:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The photo is fine so shut up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.126.250 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 June 2006

I came to the talk page in part 'cause I was looking to see if there was any talk about the bad photo. I don't know if there's a better one, but it's worth talking about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.196.96 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 15 July 2006

[edit] issue

Perhaps I'm wildly out of balance in this discussion (mostly over terminology). But doesn't it seem slightly ridiculous? Is no one, absolutly no one, questioning the motivations behind Isreal claiming that it will risk the security of some half a dozen nations by invading (or whatever you want to call it), bombing, killing and destroying towns over this single individual?

Kidnapping is not exaclty honorable, and theres no degree sanctioning the action as idiocy that can do it justice. But, come on...Isreal is going to invade and use 500 bombs, threaten to assisinate a prime minister, (as i was just reading in rueters) and god knows what else...becuase a kid was taken hostage? How many people die regulary over these issues?

Are these two countries just really that dumb? or are all of us for buying this? Can someone help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.115.176.42 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 July 2006

I'll take a shot. One of the most sensitive issues in Israel (and in any other country) are missing soldiers. There is an enormous pressure on the government in this case. In Israel, military service is obligatory, and so almost any parent can imagine himself in this situation. That's why Israel has a very strict policy in scenarios involving hostages. There's no negotiation whatsoever in these cases, and Israel's response is very harsh, and without proportion to the kidnapping. The Israeli and the Palestinian people are interwoven. It is quite easy for say three Palestinian terrorists to kidnap a teenager on a daily basis. If the Israeli response wouldn't be extreme, Israel might lose this war. On the Israeli's side —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.178.114.234 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 2 July 2006
Every single person in Israel knows someone who is serving in the army. In addition Israel gave control over the Gaza strip to the Palestinians and was rewarded with Qassam rockets over the border. I should imagine the completely unprovoked kidnapping caused Israel to lose patience, particularly as every news report I have heard and seen has had no Palestinian saying the kidnapping was wrong, they are all supportive, shout about destroying Israel and then whine about how they have no food. I can't feel sympathetic towards people who condone terrorism, elect terrorists, and then act surprised when the rest of the world doesn't react positively.
Unless Gilad is given back, Gaza will be taken apart piece by piece. All the Palestinians have to do is give him back and then Israel must withdraw or face international condemnation. No negotiations will be offered, as it shouldn't be, or terrorists would kidnap every Israeli they can find and hold Israel to ransom; this is why Israel goes so over the top when they have someone kidnapped.
Either Gilad Shalit is returned in one piece or Gaza will be reduced to rubble. Dev920 12:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely a valid subject for discussion (the particular attention being paid to the fate of this individual), and perhaps something which should be mentioned in the article. An 18 year-old Israeli settler from the West Bank was kidnapped and murdered in the same time period as the Shalit case, the buried body was found - this did not lead to any major escalation in tension as far as I can see. Is it the uncertainty of the fate of a "hostage" or "prisoner" which makes it such a hot-button issue? Is Gilad Shalit more important to the Israeli authorities for some as yet undisclosed reason? Not trying to get into wild speculation here but it is something people are talking about. Riddley 23:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I see your point Riddley, but how much worse could the tension have got? tanks were rolling into Gaza, planes launching strikes; the settler, Lord rest his soul, was dead - what can you do about that? Destroy some more buildings? Dev920 00:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Dev920. Once Asheri (the kidnapped settler) was executed, all Israel can do is punish the murderers. However, the Israeli government escalates the pressure on the Palestinians (kidnaps some Palestinians officials, bombs the Palestinian prime-minister's office), in order the save the life that can be saved. On the Israeli's side

[edit] Terminology

I've returned the section title to "Gaza Invasion". The invasion of the territory previously ceded to the PA is an observable event; the rescue operation is a claim made by the IDF to explain the invasion, and thus POV. — JEREMY 15:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

But the problem with this is that the only aspect for which is pertinent to Gilad Shalit is the rescue operation, which is indeed taking place. The whole operation should be detailed at its namespace, the pertinent information to Shalit should be placed here. Perhaps "Rescue Attempt" would better describe it? Rangeley 16:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I am no friend to Israel, but I agree with Rangeley. The action isn't an invasion anyway, since the intent is not to remove the established Palestinian government from power (at least, this is what Israel claims for the time being). Even if it the objectives should change in the future, the operation is a rescue mission as it pertains to Shalit. Kafziel 16:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with you befriending Israel or being objective. When a foreign army enters into foreign land, without the permission of the sovereign leader - its routinely referred to as an invasion. Irrespective of the mission and its objective, the proper authorities were vacated, or forced to vacate leaving the region without representation and security. Due to foreign factors, i.e invasion. The line should properly read that it was indeed an invasion. Frantz Fanon 16:32 June 28, 2006

it was not. because Gaza Strip is not a sovereign territory. In case you didn't know. -- tasc wordsdeeds 20:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter whether it’s a sovereign or not. Africa wasn’t sovereign either, but Europe occupied it. So, your logic is absurd.

At what point did "Europe" occupy Africa? Kafziel 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not your tutor.
You know Europe and Africa aren't countries, right? They're continents. Kafziel 10:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
"Invasion" doesn't require that the invaded area have an established or recognized government. It's just a term that describes (in one definition) the act of "entering and permeating, especially harmfully." That seems to apply, regardless of the purpose. --Hrodulf 21:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
What matters is the international recognition of a "Palestinian State". If we're talking about sovereignty we can't say that Israel "invaded" Gaza Strip, because Palestinian sovereignty is not properly honored through the recognition of Palestinian independence by the United Nations. IMHO this should be regarded merely as a military operation. If we are to call this "an invasion", we should call the Israeli military overflight that took place above Al-Assad's house in Syria an invasion as that too lacks permission of the sovereign leader and involves violation of foreign territory. --kutukagan 21:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd say this, too: Israel has frequently gone into Gaza in the past and will probably do so again. Calling each one of these "Gaza invasion" will only lead to confusion, i.e., which Gaza invasion? IronDuke 21:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, technically it is an invasion. Even though PA is not considered to be sovereign by UN, Israel too has no sovereignty over Gaza. It is not the jurisdiction of the State of Israel. But for the reason, stated above, I would refrain using the term invasion every time Israeli forces have an operation within Gaza or West Bank. Invasion, as many people undertand, would refer to a longer term commitment to stay in certain area. If this one turns out to be such, then there will be no problem with properly calling it an invasion. --TimBits 02:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If Israel changes course and decides to retake Gaza or do away with the Palestinian authority, then it will be an invasion. Not yet. Kafziel 02:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No. of Israeli soldiers killed

Were 3 soldiers killed or 2?

I reckon 2. Maybe someone died in hospital. But I haven't heard about it. -- tasc wordsdeeds 06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Only two were killed. I have made the neccesary change. Cymruisrael 07:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
But what about the civilian who was kidnapped and killed on the West Bank?
He wasn't killed in an operation. He wasn't soldier. He was killed after beginning of the operation. -- tasc wordsdeeds 07:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Militant or Terrorist?

Although the capture/kidnapping of Gilad Shalit is probably not a terrorist act in the true technical sense of the word, it still doesn't alter the fact that those who committed it were terrorists and not militants. I think that the terminology should be reverted to my original change. Cymruisrael 07:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually a terrorist is someone whose victim is an innocent noncombatant. If the person is in uniform and earning a paycheck for military services, it is hard to fit them into the definition even "technically". Particularly since many innocent Palestinians were killed in the weeks prior by the Israeli military and that wasn't classified as terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.239.111.66 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 30 June 2006

The question is whether Israel is technically at war with the Palestinean Authority of Hamas. It's rather confusing. If there's a war going on, then yes, this wouldn't really be terrorism, it'd be warfare. The problem is that the palestineans don't have the resourses to actually defeat Israel in a conventional war, so they're doing the bombings and kidnappings instead, apparently for political reasons as well as to get prisoners released and other concessions. In this regard, terrorism has proven a profitable path for getting more powerful entities to give concessions (see, for instance, the Wikipedia article on the Irish_War_of_Independence and the Anglo-Irish Treaty, or, more topically, the King_David_Hotel_Bombing. It all depends on whether you consider terrorism a "valid" warfare tactic or not, and that comes down to semantics and perhaps an unavoidable POV problem: there is no neutral term that describes whether the kidnapping is terrorism or not; each way of describing its nature makes a point of view statement about whether terrorism is a valid military tactic or not. The article on the Iraq resistance/insurgency/whatever has the same problem, and it's probably an unsolvable problem.
There are three elements in my opinion to be taken into account at the same time: (1) what is the status of the person who is taken prisoner/abducted/detained; (2) what is the status of the person(s) taking him; and (3) are the two parties at war. Shalit is a soldier, and those keeping him prisoner are militiamen closed to the Palestinian ruling party. Therefore the first question to be asked is whether those militiamen are mere combatants or soldiers (i.e. wearing uniforms and prominently carrying weapons). If they are regular soldiers and we consider Palestine to be at war with Israel the Shalit case is not terrorism. If they are combatants but not soldiers, then their action is terrorism, as they were not entitled to legally carry out it: civilians can not take part in warfare. In both cases the Israeli reaction is legally justified (we can disagree on the political evaluation of the Israeli decision to react, though): if the militiamen are to be ragarded as soldiers then the Israeli reaction is war; if they are not then their actions are reason for war, in view of their closenness to the Palestinian ruling party. And if Palestine is *not* at war with Israel, then the prisoner taking was not under the auspices or guidance or in the interests of the Palestinian government, and the Palestinians who carried it out should be prosecuted by the very Palestinian legal authorities. 193.205.125.2 09:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
--Hrodulf 21:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I noticed someone changed "terrorist" to "militant" again. The reasoning behind their edit was "BBC says so." Folks, the BBC is not the standard for the use of legal terms such as terrorist. The BBC has been questioned in the press numerous times for refusing to use the word "terrorist", and has stated that it is BBC policy to not use "terrorist" to refer to any person in international news (yet it continues to do so anyway). The BBC has also stated that it discourages the use of the word "terror" and "terrorist" because it alienates many readers. Instead of looking to a source that refuses to use words accurately due to a desire for media success, it would be better to look to a legal source for definitions of this legal term. Virtually all states contain "illegal violence" as part of their definition of terrorism. What occured to Shalit was illegal under international law as well (since hostage taking is illegal). Unless someone can justify the change from terrorist to militant with something stronger than "the BBC says so" it needs to be changed back. The major governments of the world have all defined this as a terrorist act, and it is illegal under international law.--ARoyal 13:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
The sentence uses as its reference a BBC article. That article does not use the word "terrorist." The word it uses is "militant." Javadane 17:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
In a larger context--labelling this a "terrorist" attack is certainly an ethnocentric POV. Palestinian soldiers attacked Israeli soldiers and took a POW. Israel might call it a "terrorist" attack, but most of the world wouldn't. THe Palestinian POV would likely label them "patriots." The press uses the more neutral term "militant" or "fighter." See this article from Ha'aretz [1] or this one from the NY Times [2] . Javadane 22:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
We don't know who the individual people are or their past history of actions, do we? So we should only call them "terrorist" if this is itself a terrorist act. Since no-one seems to think this is technically a terrorist act (anyone?), we should not use the word "terrorist". —Ashley Y 01:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

All attempts to portray all Palestinians as terrorists will be treated as vandalism. — JEREMY 02:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not helpful; please read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. In any case, we're not talking about all Palestinians, we're talking about the specific individuals who captured Shalit. —Ashley Y 05:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I think at this point we do know who the groups are that carried out the act. The Army of Islam article stated that it was a coalition of various Palestinian terror groups. The Israeli government stated that Hamas was responsible.[3] The groups accused are listed as terror groups by the US and the EU. The entire world is calling this a terrorist action. The only ones that aren't calling it a terrorist action are the BBC, the Guardian, (due to their pseudo-PC policies) and Arab newspapers. Of course Israeli media believes it is a terrorist action, as we can see in this YNet article[4], NY Sun says it is Hamas terrorists[5], World Net Daily refers to them as terrorists[6], ABC Online in Australia [7], etc. The fact is, we can find as many media sources that refer to Shalit's kidnappers as terrorists, and that identify them as Hamas members, as we can that say they are "militants" and pretend as if we don't actually know who kidnapped him. Likewise, we can find as many media sources (if not more) that use the term "kidnapped" rather than "captured", but no one has seemed to pay attention to that due to picking the termonology of a far-left media source based in a country that has a long history of anti-Semitism. The terms used in this wikipedia entry so far represent a far left-wing POV, not a neutral one accepted by the entire world or one recognized by anyone except those on the left in specific media outlets. The choice of termonology also attempts to morally equate the actions of Hamas (and others), an illegal terrorist group, with groups that are not terrorist and are not illegal, like the military of a soverign state. In short, changing terms like "kidnapped" to "captured" or "terrorist" to "militant", reflects a biased POV represented in certain sectors of left-wing thought and in the left-wing media. --ARoyal 13:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Irgun bombed the King David hotel against the British also. 90 people died. "Terrorist" is just a word you use if the killers aren't on your side. Think about that for awhile. --Hrodulf 02:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The Irgun used terror tactics and the bombing of the King David hotel was a terrorist action. The Irgun was also forcefully disbanded by the Israeli government once the State of Israel achieved independence for that very reason. In addition, comparing the Irgun to modern day Palestinian terror is rather nonsensical and fallacious, because the methods used by modern day Palestinian terrorists are not comparable to those used by the Irgun. For example, suicide attacks on sandwich stands in Israel are not comparable to the Irgun attacking the King David hotel, which was being used as a British military stronghold. Likewise, unannounced attacks on Israeli locations are not equivalent to the bombing of the King David hotel which was warned an hour ahead of time by telephone to evacuate.
Its this type of moral subjectivism that the media sources that abound in this article have to cater to (for example, the BBC has stated it will not use the word "terrorist" not due to accuracy, but due to the fact that it doesn't want to offend its readers), but not something that the academic world should have to cater to. This is why it pains me to see the moral subjectivism in the media reiterated in something like wikipedia that attempts to market itself as an academic venue. --ARoyal 09:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


The IRA also commonly gave short notice warnings. Didn't stop them being a terrorist organisation however. Timb0h 11:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Right, and as I stated, the Irgun was a terrorist group and was disbanded. This much is recognized by the State of Israel today. However, the point is that all types of terrorism are not morally equivalent. A terrorist attack on infrastructure is not morally equivalent to a terrorist attack on people. And a terrorist attack that intentionally kills people is not morally equivalent to a terrorist attack that kills people by accident (such as with the King David hotel). In any case, terrorist is mostly a legal term. What we call terrorist should be defined by legal standards, not by the liberal media.
The Reference Guide to the Geneva Conventions [8] under the heading "terrorism" states, "Civilians who commit an offense against an occupying power which does not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force or administration, pose a grave collective danger, or seriously damage property or installations of the occupying power may only be punished by internment or imprisonment. (Convention IV, Art. 68)." The kidnapping of Shalit constitutes terrorism by this definition. Because capture or kidnapping is not an attempt on the life of the person then it does not fall into the exception of those things that "do(es) not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force." In addition, those who captured Shalit are civilians by definition, as they are not members of the military of a soverign state. The US Dept of Defense defines terrorism as, "the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."[9] Instead of relying on the liberal media for the term used, it would be in the better interest of academic honesty to rely upon a legal source for a legal term.--ARoyal 15:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Another quick note, the Terrorism Research Center has consistently referred to the kidnapping of of Shalit as a terrorist action in addition to consistently linking to external news sources as part of its research on terrorist groups and actions such as this[10] one.--ARoyal 15:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Members of the IDF were killed in the attack which resulted in the capturing of Gilad Shalit. Thus an attempt on life was made. Timb0h 15:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually hostage taking is covered in the Geneva Conventions, as well. Its also against international law. No matter how you slice it, an attempt on the life of Shilat was not made. Because others died in the incident does not infer that the intent of the incident was to take a life. In fact, its already been covered that the intent of the operation was to take hostages to bargin for the release of prisoners. Its a terrorist action, by definition. Its also agaisnt international law. --ARoyal 11:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have yet to see a definitive source declaring the intent of the operation. You can not know what the intent of the operation was, unless you talk to the people who carried it out. No-one even knows exactly who carried it out. And by the way, the text of the geneva convention as you linked it "Civilians who commit an offense against an occupying power which does not include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force or administration," makes no distinction between the target of the action and others. The action has to be against the occupying power, and it has to include an attempt against the lives of members of the occupying force. It doesn't say you have to make an attempt against the lives of all the occupying forces that are present. I don't know how you claim to know whether they made an attempt on his life or not anyway. He ended up with a broken hand and a shoulder wound. I doubt in the fighting that took place he was singled out as someone who was not shot at. Timb0h 11:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, the only reason we're discussing all this is that Arabs don't like the term "terrorist" applied to anything they do. They figure it's a dirty word and an insult rather than a specific dictionary term that describes a specific type of act. To their way of thinking, attacks such as Maalot or airplane hijackings aren't terrorist attacks because it's something they do. Shooting back, now that's terrorism. Frankly, it sounds very childing to me, sort of "so's your old man" kind of namecalling and denial.

I'm not sure that what happened to Cpl Shalit is specifically definable as a terrorist attack becuase it was all strictly military, but it is a war crime -- Hamas crossed the border and kidnapped him. The people of Gaza voted for Hamas, they knew what Hamas wanted to do. They can live with the result of having voted for war criminals.Scott Adler 19:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

All very interesting. Are Israel and Hamas at war? There's been no declaration of war, but there wasn't one when the US/UK attacked Iraq, and that's widely recognised as a war, though many people, particularly in the UK, believe it was an illegal act. Israel has been assassinating Hamas politicians and militants for a while now - if it isn't a war, then how can this be justified legally? Members of the security services arbitrarily killing citizens (even bad ones) of a land they occupy would be classed as a war crime. If Gaza isn't classed as an occupied land, then the security services would be killing citizens of an independent territory, which is an act of war. Unless Gaza was legally part of Israel, but clearly this can't be the case or its citizens would have Israeli citizenship. If there is a war, then attacking enemy soldiers and taking prisoners of war would be a valid legal military action.
The reason the BBC don't use the term "terrorist" anymore is because it's controversial and POV - remember "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". And it's complex to apply in many cases; "a person or group who uses violence and the fear of violence to further political, idealogical, and economic aims". There are many countries which use violence in order to further regime change. Are they terrorist nations? Because they fall under the definition. And sometimes the terrorists are "good guys" like the French resistance, or the US founding fathers, because they certainly used violence to further their aims. So in the end, the label "terrorist" tells us absolutely nothing about the actions, motivations, or justifications of a person or group of people, so why use it?

172.203.235.207 09:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the phrase "in a terrorist act" for the reasons given above - it wasn't a terrorist act. I also removed 72.85.17.139's additions of "terrorist" because it's incorrect, that's not what was demanded and wasn't mentioned in the linked article. Thrapper 21:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability?

Being kidnapped doesn't make anyone notable, as sad as it can be. Has this guy done anything else? --euyyn 15:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Wilbanks wasn't even kidnapped at all, and the rescue efforts put forth to find her were nowhere near this extent, but she's still notable enough to have an article. Kafziel 16:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I could as well think she's not notable enough, couldn't I? Indeed, I got to know her because of your link. Anyway, hers is an article which tells what did she do to become famous there in the US. Not quite the same --euyyn 08:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Some people become famous by accident, some even against their will. Perhaps a passing reference of Shalit's name or short section in the Operation Summer Rain article might suffice. But what convinced me to originally write this article is that Shalit, by accident of history, become the motivating force for a large military operation, political strain and drama, international discourse and major news coverage. So while Shalit himself, as far as we know, may not have done anything extroidinary, what happened to him and the aftermath, and what he has come to represent to both sides, is extroidinary, now embedded into Middle-east history. Rest 22:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree he's famous for now. At least in countries where people remember his name. My concern is whether we will ever be able to write an article about him which were more than "This guy was kidnapped by ... leading to .... Well... eh... here we have some trivia about him: ..." --euyyn 08:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ron Arad is notable; so it he. Jon513 03:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Not a powerful argument, yours. It's your opinion that Ron Arad is notable enough. Additionaly, if I argue that being kidnapped doesn't make anyone notable (and so, if the only "reason" for his notability is that, this guy isn't notable), stating that some other guy is notable because of being kidnapped, doesn't prove this one is (your conclusion): It only says you disagree with my premise (i.e. "being kidnapped doesn't give notability"). --euyyn 23:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Link- Prayer for Shalit

I am not familiar with the policy for external links, but I am curious to hear from others what thought should go into including the external link for the prayer for Shalit. (e.g. does it provide any substantive information or special insight that is not already in the article, particularly since it is in hebrew? is it seen to represent a particular POV). Rest 22:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia but I think it's relevant as Jews may want to say this prayer. I do think there should be adequate warning that this is both a Hebrew prayer and a pdf file.
I think the only POV in a prayer for somebody's safe return home is a humanitarian POV. --kutukagan 09:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
These are both great points. Thanks! Rest 12:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Kidnapped" vs. "captured"

The BBC prefers "captured"[11], and I think it makes sense:

So we try to stick to the facts - civilians are "kidnapped", Cpl Shalit was "captured";

—Ashley Y 20:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If Cpl. Shalit was captured, then he should be considered and treated as a POW. This is not happening; there has been no access to the Red Cross, no access to a neutral diplomat and he is not being held in a suitable facility. Also, sovereign states in a state of war do NOT bargain for the return of POWs. At the end of the conflict, both sides return their POWs with no regard to numbers. Faced with these facts, the only conclusion must be that he was kidnapped/abducted for the purpose of acheiving political gains. In which case, those who performed the deed are terrorists and NOT militants. Also, since when was the BBC's choice of language regarded as being the undisputed truth? Please update the article accordingly. Cymruisrael 14:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Not all armed forces follow the laws for the fair treatment of POWs. That doesn't change anything. North Vietnam didn't provide Red Cross access or access to diplomats. Does that mean they were kidnappers instead of combatants? No. Kafziel 15:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
He is neither a kid nor a civilian, he wasn't napped either. He is a soldier who didnt come back from combat yet. I suppose no one gave him chocolate to hop into a car. Was he so naive to trust the stranger? No. He was abducted in combat, that's horrible enough for anybody. -- .tilde. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.169.205.192 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 3 July 2006
This is kidnapping according to the Geneva Conventions. The reasons for this are that Shalit has been used as a bargining tool. Being a civilian or a soldier does not, under international law, weigh in as a factor in what is a "capture" or what is a hostage/kidnapping situation. Rather, the treatment of the soldier does. If the person is used as a bargining chip, as Shalit has been, then it is kidnapping/hostage taking as defined in Article 3 of Convention I, Article 4 of Protocol II, Article 34 of Convention IV, and Article 75 of Protocol I. Remember folks, kidnapping is a legal term, not a moral term. It is not defined by the BBC or other media sources. Under international law as outlined in the Geneva Conventions, this was kidnapping/hostage taking. --ARoyal 14:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
On the note of what the BBC prefers, it should also be noted that other major news media sources have used the term kidnapped:
Palestinian militants kidnapped Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit and killed two other soldiers during a raid in Israeli territory near its border with Egypt and Gaza.[12]
In fact most media sources are using the term kidnapped. The BBC seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. And the BBC is not the gold standard for things such as this. Again, as I stated above, it would be best to check the legal definition of the word. And according to that legal definition, he was kidnapped. I havn't reverted this term though, I'll let someone else make the call. --ARoyal 14:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
The Geneva Conventions refer to taking of hostages, not kidnapping. He was captured (as a soldier), now he is being held hostage. —Ashley Y 17:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Ashley, are you being deliberately dishonest or innocently misinformed? The references I listed from the Geneva Conventions explicitly state kidnapping. Kidnapping is the term used. --ARoyal 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
There's no use of the word "kidnapping" in Article 3 of Convention I, Article 4 of Protocol II, Article 34 of Convention IV or Article 75 of Protocol I. —Ashley Y 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
It's also worth mentioning that the capturers are not party to the Geneva Conventions (though this does not morally justify the act of holding hostages). —Ashley Y 19:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, it doesn't actually use the word kidnapping in the text of the Conventions. I was using a cross-reference for the word kidnapping at genevaconventions.org and it threw me off.

--ARoyal 19:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of prisoners

According to the CNN article they want the release of women and children under 18. According to some reports however, they want the release of 1000 persons. Both can be true at the same time. But it is a matter of perspective of what demand one to report. A 1000:1 ratio can be considered unbalanced whereas demanding the release of women and children can be seen as humanitarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.37.20.20 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 3 July 2006

[edit] Some perspective about the customs of war

All uniformed Israelis and Palestinians are legitimate target for killing/kidnapping anywhere in Israel and Palestinian territories .This is allowed under International law. This situation has been blown out of proportion by the Israel and the International media. Soldiers are killed/kidnapped around the world every day and they are reported normally as statistics of war. Customs of war allow Palestinians to hold the soldier as a POW until the war ends, but they are also obligated to treat him humanely.That's all there is to the story! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferick (talk • contribs) 15:53, 3 July 2006

What's so legal about war anyway, professor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.169.205.192 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 3 July 2006
"All uniformed Israelis and Palestinians are legitimate target" that must be a well kept secret ... I'm sure if Israel knew, they'd stop forcing their soldiers to wear uniforms ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.146.88.37 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 3 July 2006
capturing a an enemy soldier is an act of war. Now all uniformed palestinians are legitimate targets for kidnapping and killing. This includes the leaders of Hamas who gave the orders, and should be held accountable. The capturing was done in the middle of peace talks, which borders on a criminal act. 128.139.226.37 14:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Palestinians"

The repeated use of the term "the Palestinians" within this article must be fixed immediately. Lumping together all Palestinians here is unnacceptably vague and, frankly, offensive.I'm fixing a few of the ones with obvious alternatives, but someone better briefed in this should find specific terms for the following sentences:

  • "The Palestinians issued a statement..."
  • "On the 1st of July, the Palestinians issued another demand..."
  • "This has been subsequently denied by other Palestinians."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.153.182.110 (talk • contribs)

I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.27.240 (talk) 19:27, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erm, sentance doesn't make sense

"Shalit's abduction has widely been reported to be the incident that triggered the current crisis, although other sources have pointed out that the day before, 24 June, two Palestinian civilians, a doctor and his brother were abducted by the IDF in Al Shouka, near Rafah.[8]" Unless the implication is that the previous incident triggered this one? Which would be strange if the operation was planned for two months. Rich Farmbrough 00:05 29 July 2006 (GMT).

The 'attack' was being planned for 2 months (according to one source). The kidnapping could have been something that wasn't initially planned as part of the attack but was added to the plan because of the earlier incident (according to another source). Neither are stated as fact, so both can happily co exist as what has been said by different sources. Timb0h 22:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comment on earlier taking

There was a comment alleging that the "real" start of the conflict was an alleged abduction of two palestinians the day before. I removed it for two reasons.

First, and most importantly, I couldn't verify it. It came with a footnote. But, checking the citation given as a footnote did not reveal any information on this allegation. Instead, the link led to an advertisement/flyer calling on people to criticize Israel's actions.

Second, the entire issue of where to identify the start/finish of conflict (aka the "punctuation") is difficult. Israel pulled out of Gaza. They were met with over a thousand rocket attacks. Are those properly seen as the "start?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.50.99 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 31 July 2006

I don't think there is a problem with the article how it is at the moment. It mentions that most reports cite Shalits capture as the trigger, whilst a minority cite these other kidnappings. With the advertisement that was taken out by the group in the link, I think it is certainly worth a mention. Timb0h 22:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theory

Someone is trying to add a link to http://linux.coconia.net/politics/fake-provocation.htm, which is just a bunch of speculation with no real grounding in reality. I am removing it. If someone thinks a conspiracy theory is worth a mention, then they should add it to the main article with properly cited sources. Timb0h 10:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Start of war?

I don't consider Shalit's kidnapping as the beginning of the second Lebanese war. It happened a month before the war. The second Lebanon war started when three soldiers were killed and 2 more captured on the Lebanese border, along with the barrage of missiles on the North. I propose that the first paragraph of the article be changed to reflect this. Dotancohen 01:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)