Framing; Were the soldiers "Kidnapped" or were they "Captured?"

[benburch]

Seems to me that when one army's soldiers takes into custody another army's soldiers, they have been "captured" not "kidnapped." "Kidnapped" applies only to civilians.

And please understand that I am not saying it was right, just that it is a transparent attempt to frame this issue.

[madaboutharry]

1. Were they taken while on Israeli land?

If they were inside Israeli territory then they were kidnapped. I think that would determine how to appropriately term it.

[benburch]

2. No, that doesn't work.

Captured applies in all other circumstances to issues on borders.

When the North Koreans captured the USS Pueblo and her crew, we never called them "Kidnapped" even though they were in what we called International Waters.

[madaboutharry]

8. No, I disagree.

I think when terrorist crossed over into Israel for the purpose of "kidnapping" soldiers - well, they were kidnapped. Captured means something different. Captured implies a battlefield scenerio where everyone knows the score.

[benburch]

9. And that border is not a battfield?

It has been for 30 years.

[madaboutharry]

13. What was the purpose of them being "snatched?"

It was a kidnapping, Ben. It was not the taking of soldiers on a battlefield. It was "snatching" soldiers to hold as hostages. Come on, your a bright guy.

[benburch]

17. The purpose was irrelevant.

It was one belligerent entering another's territory and capturing uniformed soldiers.

But since you ask, I think the purpose was to provoke the sort of disproportionate response Israel unfailingly provides so as to lure other nations into the conflict, not as hostages. As hostages they are nearly worthless.

[madaboutharry]

19. You just made my argument,

hold them as hostages and provoke a response. The purpose was very relevant. I am done here.

[benburch]

21. Mind you, you just have my opinion.

And it still does not address the issue of framing language.

[mumon]

12. Given that Israel's borders are in fact, in dispute

"captured" is the appropriate term.

[otokogi]

11. they were in occupied territory in both cases

fyi

[cali]

14. Only if you consider all of Israel behind the green line

to be part of Palestine, were the soldiers on occupied territory.

[otokogi]

26. the first was in the gaza strip, the other two in israeli occupied lebanon

fyi

[otokogi]

29. + Hamas and Hezbollah attacked military targets...

Israel Takes A Stupid Pill, by Larry Johnson

Hamas and Hezbollah attacked military targets--kidnapping soldiers on military patrols may be an act of war and a provocation, but it is not terrorism. (And yes, Hezbollah and Hamas have carried out terrorist attacks in the past against Israeli civilians. I'm not ignoring those acts, I condemn them, but we need to understand what the dynamics are right now.) Israel is not attacking the individuals who hit their soldiers. Israel is engaged in mass punishment.

more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1644161&mesg_id=1644161

[cali]

30. You've been corrected on this more than once

Why keep repeating something that isn't true. There's almost universal agreement that the soldiers in both incidents were on israeli territory. In the case of Shalit, the militants/insurgents/freedom fighters/terrorists/whatevers, dug a tunnel from a home in Gaza, several hundred yards into ISRAEL, not Gaza. In the second case the soldiers were behind the UN recognized border, also in Israel.

Nothing wrong with having a strong pov, lots wrong with bending the truth or lying.

[otokogi]

31. you think you have all the truth

thats part of the problem.

military targets, guarding occupied territories is what most of the rest of the world sees and israel terrorizing civilian populations over these legitimate military targets.

thats, the other part of the problem, proportionality... israel and some of her supporters have 0 sense of it, just like our neoCONs and their supporters.

they will be the death of us all.

fyi

[cali]

34. no. I think, as the saying goes, that you are entitled to your own

opinions but not your own facts. I also think you're not terribly cogent.

[otokogi]

35. perception is everything

mediocrity recognizes nothing higher than itself

[cali]

3. How about abducted?

And you make it sound so tidy- taken into custody. Whether it's legitimate or not- they were ambushed and abducted and some were killed. BTW, are you sure that kidnapped only refers to civilians?

[benburch]

5. Abducted does not seem to have been used for military in the past.

Though I am much less sure of that.

And no, "tidy" is not my intention. I am trying to look for the appropriate un-loaded neutral language to describe what happened.

If you wanted to similarly load it on the other side, you would move towards "arrested" or "detained."

[physioex]

4. No doubt they try and frame the issue........

Just my opinion that captured is better suited when a solider is caught and is given proper treatment according to the Geneva Conventions. I am not aware of how the soldiers are being treated.

[benburch]

7. Nor is anybody aware of that except their captors. nt

[cali]

16. No, that's wrong.

They are absolutely not being treated in accord with the Geneva conventions, which are very specific and involve disclosure of where a capive is being held, ICRC access and many, many other requirements.

[benburch]

18. There is a reasonable time allowed before such disclosure must be made.

And one does not do that while the captured soldiers are still on the battlefield.

However, even if they are not being treated according to the Geneva Convention, you are aware that there were many entire German submarine crews held by the USA under such circumstances in WW-II, right? Look up U-505, for example.

And since the Hezzbola insurgents are not signatories to the Geneva accords in any case, I do hope that they are still treating them in a humane fashion and keeping them from harm's way.

[cali]

23. This is really academic but

the time allowable before notification has elapsed in the case of Shalit, and in any case, you're correct that none of the groups involved are signatories.

I too hope that the soldiers are being treated in a humane fashion, but between the record of militants who have captured Israeli soldiers, and Israel's actions- which certainly don't seem aimed at recovering these men, I wouldn't be shocked at ill treatment.

[otokogi]

6. this has been pointed out on DU repeatedly

fortunately

[Solo_in_MD]

10. Depends on what you perceive Hezbullah is...

When national armies take prisoners, the correct use is captured. When a soldier is taken at gunpoint by a civilian without civil authority, its kidnapping.

If Hezbullah is the army of Lebanon or part of its law enforcement structure, captured/prisoner would be correct. However if they are not, its kidnapping,


My take: Kidnapping, especially since it happened on Israeli soil.

[benburch]

28. I perceive them as...

...a nomadic raiding stateless belligerent with ancestral claims to the land occupied by Israel.

And it is not clear what rights such an entity has.

[adriennui]

32. really,

you don't consider them terrorists? well then how about a common and violent gang of murderous punks and thugs. no better than the old crips and bloods. OK?

[benburch]

33. It's not that simple.

Just as the bombing of the King David Hotel was not that simple.

[damntexdem]

15. They were captured, not kidnapped.

And it's insurgency, not terrorism.

Now, terrorism involves actions against civilians -- as in the IDF attrocities against citizens in Gaza and Lebanon (and, yes, Hezbollah terrorism against civilians, too).

[Poll_Blind]

20. The Israeli media machine will always turn their soldiers into...

...innocents and the civilians they harm or kill into criminals. This from the country that had to pass a law to prevent pardoning of the Prime Ministerial assassin (who shot Rabin) because there was so much public sympathy for his release.

  Can you imagine what kind of world Israeli society is living in when the assassination of their own elected leaders garners a sizable percentage (20%) of public support? In this case it was because of the unpopular move by Rabin to pull back some of the settlements.

  The Revisionist Zionists in Israel and the Likud and Shas parties they are members of will stop at nothing to see Eretz Israel, a "greater" Israel referred to as being from the River Jordan to the sea.

  They will kill Jew as easily as gentile. Nothing will stop them. Like Islamists, they have twisted a religion into something utterly hateful and murderous.

See Yigal Amir, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, Revisionist Zionism, Eretz Israel

PB

[cali]

24. simplistic yet again n/t

[Bozita]

22. WWFLS (What Would Frank Luntz Say?)

"Kidnapped" is so much juicier than "captured."

[Poppyseedman]

25. They are "Kidnapped"

because they are being used as bargaining chips for negotiations as opposed to "Captured" as being taken out of action.

[benburch]

27. And when the British traded POWs with Germany in WW-I?

Were they not still POWs even though they were used as bargaining chips?