A Thousand To One

Posted by on . 7 comments.

We normally steer very clear of the Israeli-Palestinian tangle, but how could this go unremarked:

Palestinian militant factions who captured an Israeli soldier demanded on Saturday that Israel free 1,000 prisoners from its jails and end an assault on Gaza launched to win the soldier’s release.
[...]
The statement did not specify that this would be in exchange for Shalit’s release, but Abu Ubaida, a spokesman for the Hamas armed wing, said that was what it meant.

Without taking any position on the Palestinian claim that this is a “just and humanitarian demand”,
what kind of message does this send to all the Palestinian kids who are just entering prime stone-throwing age (that may be optionally shortened to stone age) when you say that one Israeli is worth a thousand Palestinians?

Comments

  1. JimC says:
    June 30, 2006 at 7:00 pm

    I agree….but I have to think that Israel has had to put up with this kind of crap far too long, obviously I take the side of Israel but when Israel has taken the initiative so many times only to be taken advantage of later, we must assume that the Palestinians and Arabs mean what they say when they call for the destruction of Israel…Israel should not back off. Let Syria and Jordan give up land for the Palestinian state…

  2. sarabeth says:
    June 30, 2006 at 9:17 pm

    For the record: this comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of my post. He’s not agreeing with anything I said. In fact, I don’t agree with anything he’s saying.

  3. Glen says:
    July 1, 2006 at 12:02 am

    Sarabeth: I must admit, I took a double-take on this post. When you refered to

    Palestinian kids who are just entering prime stone-throwing age,

    I reacted quite strongly, as this sort of a priori judgement (namely that Palestenian kids are pre-destined to throw stones at Israelis) is often used by the same sorts of right-wing nuts that claim “Palestinians and Arabs mean what they say when they call for the destruction of Israel”.

    Naturally, then, when you suggesting that 1:1000 was an inappropriate valuation of the worth Palestenians, I cynically thought you were implying that the Isralis were being too generous, that no cost–in money or Palestenian lives– is too high for the safe retreival of the Israeli soldier. Indeed, this is what some Israeli generals have been implying.

    However, on a second read, I can see that this isn’t what you meant at all. It seems to me now that your post is commenting on the self-depreciating position that the Palestenian leadership is taking, in suggesting that 1000 Palestenians for 1 Israeli would be a fair trade. Of course, coming from their political leaders, that’s not the sort of message that will boost the self-worth of Palestenian teenagers.

    Yet, for me, the most interesting part of your post is the introductory first line:

    We normally steer very clear of the Israeli-Palestinian tangle…

    Of all the collective punishment insanity that’s going on this week (destruction of powerplants, water-mains, bridges, etc), it’s curious, to me at least, that the only point you broke tradition to comment on was one about what sort of message “the Palestenians” are sending to their kids.

    To be direct: Ordinary Palestenian people have very little means to do anything about the situation there. It’s important to distinguish them from from the Palestenian politcial leadership, who have limited, thought not extensive means to influence the situation. To talk about “the Palestenians” is to obscure this distinction. Intentional or not, such imprecise language makes it possible to think something such as “Palestinians and Arabs mean what they say when they call for the destruction of Israel” possible.

    I won’t go any further with the argument…

  4. sarabeth says:
    July 1, 2006 at 4:56 am

    In my opinion, that collective punishment insanity speaks for itself and needs no comment. Both sides consistently and systematically flout the laws of war and the Geneva conventions in ways that would cause great outrage if it were happening in any other part of the world. The Israeli people and Palestinian people are locked into the most hopelessly obscene medieval blood-feud mindset.

    And since the people on both sides choose their leaders, and how each side will deal with the other is always the chief election issue, I’m not sure that one can draw any meaningful distinction between the people and the leadership, except to say that like in any other country the leadership does not represent the opinions of 100% of the people.

    In my post, I’m not trying to offer any kind of serious or substantive comment on the Israeli-Palestinian situation in general, or recent developments in particular. I’m only shining a light on one small, ludicrous, unfunny piece of news.

    Indeed, this is what some Israeli generals have been implying.

    It’s obscenely offensive when Israeli generals imply it. What the hell is it when the Palestinians themselves say it? And that’s the point of my post.

    If you’re saying I shouldn’t write about this one thing if I’m not prepared to address the whole big mess, you’re entitled to that opinion. I guess I don’t agree.

  5. JimC says:
    July 1, 2006 at 7:15 am

    sarabeth said:
    June 30th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
    For the record: this comment has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of my post. He’s not agreeing with anything I said. In fact, I don’t agree with anything he’s saying.

    Oh Sarabeth, I was in fact agreeing with your assessment that the Palestinians don’t value themselves very highly, hence the 1:1000 ratio, and of course the willingness to strap bombs to your kids and send them into Israel to blow up a school bus.

    I however, did add to the post by saying the Palestinians constantly bring it on themselves and they do not desire to make peace with Israel; this is evident…and if any of you think for one minute that Palestinians and other Sons of Ishmael do not wish total removal of all Israel, then your are sadly naive…

  6. Glen says:
    July 1, 2006 at 7:35 am

    If you’re saying I shouldn’t write about this one thing if I’m not prepared to address the whole big mess, you’re entitled to that opinion. I guess I don’t agree.

    Please, don’t get me wrong… I think it’s really good that we’re discussing the issue here. And as it’s not even possible to address the whole perverse situation in one go, writing instead about individual issues is a natural way to make some sort of progress in the debate. As such, your point about the tragic absurdity represented by prisoner swaps is well taken.

    My point about the danger of imprecise language, and the confusion it introduces to the debate, is another subject altogether. To be honest, had JimC not “agreed” with you, I would have remained silent on the subject. But as he understood your post to mean something entirely different from what you meant, I thought it might be useful to make a more general point about this issue. Take for example this extract from your response to me above:

    It’s obscenely offensive when Israeli generals imply it. What the hell is it when the Palestinians themselves say it?

    Here, when you write “the Palestenians,” do you mean “Palestinian militant factions who captured an Israeli soldier?” If so (and I think this is the case), than my only criticism would be that such abbreviation can lead to confusion (as it already has).

    However, if by “the Palestenians” you mean “the Palestenian People,” then the problem is somewhat different, and my criticism would be much more lengthy, and biting.

    Already, it’s difficult enough to have any sort of substantive discussion of how to improve Isreali-Palestenian relations. The more clearly we make our points, the better chance they have of not being misconstrued.

  7. sarabeth says:
    July 1, 2006 at 7:48 am

    as he understood your post to mean something entirely different from what you meant

    Why don’t we leave JimC out of it? He has a long and consistent track record of misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting what we post.

    Here, when you write “the Palestenians,” do you mean “Palestinian militant factions who captured an Israeli soldier?”

    Point taken. I guess I mean “any Palestinians”. Maybe I should have said “What the hell is it when a Palestinian himself says it?”