CerealKiller01

That's a great insight into Israeli society.

The answer to your question is a resounding "yes".

In fact, among the 4 members of war cabinet, at least one other has children in active combat units, and ALL cabinet members served in a combat unit as well as had at least one child in active combat duty.

Most children of Israeli politicians are absolutely conscripted to the army, and the public would look very badly on a "fortunate son" type situation.

Furthermore, there's an unwritten rule the ultra-orthodox parties do not involve themselves or even voice an opinion on military matters because, and this something often said in Israel, "they don't risk their children's life in the army" (the ultra-orthodox are essentially exempt from conscription).

The Israeli Jewish public doesn't see the Israeli combatants as poor or uneducated "others", but as their children, brothers and fathers.

I think that's a more ethical way of looking at it. However, this also helps explain the seeming lack of consideration for Palestinian life. Take a random person and ask him to choose between risking the life of his kid, who is in active service, in a military operation or throwing bombs and risking harming other civilians. Most people will choose to risk others. And among those who'll choose to risk their kid, most would either be lying or didn't really think about the question.

So about that Amnesty report...?

Anyway, after calling me a "cartoon villain Nazi" I don't really think this discussion can go anywhere. so I'll go a bit off-topic and say something other readers might find interesting:

About a month ago, I spoke with a Palestinian work-buddy (yes, Palestinian Israelis work with Israeli Jews. In the the same jobs and with the same pay. Apartheid).

I asked him how he's doing, as he's not only living in Israel (and therefor a missile can hit his family as well as mine. Yet another area where Palestinian-Israelis and Jewish-Israelis are no different), he has the added bonus of fearing some psycho Jewish supremacist attacking him. He mentioned that the police are monitoring social media, and summoning for investigation Israeli-Palestinian influences who show support for Hamas, threaten them with charges and release them. Me, a ~~cartoon villain Nazi~~ bleeding heart liberal: "wow, I don't think anyone in their right mind should support Hamas, but summoning people and releasing them without charges just to threaten them... yeah, that's rough".

He replied "No, you don't understand, that wasn't a criticism. I'm saying that's a good thing. If that'll help stop a replay of two years ago [social networks played a large part in encouraging Palestinians to riot. The riots caused a surge in anti-Palestinian violence among Jews], I'm all for it" . I'm still not sure how I feel about that.

Not saying every Palestinian is like him and every Jew is like me. Just... yeah, it's complicated.

On what basis?

Again, I didn't see any Israeli source referring to them as "combatants".

State security - OTHER is indeed not a real charge at all.

What does that mean? It appears in the Israeli law, so it's as "real" as any other charge. You could say it's not a justifiable charge, but that wasn't her claim. She didn't say "I was arrested for an unjustifiable charge", rather "I was arrested without charge".

The word espionage exists as a charge, it is not in her charge.

I think that's like saying "The word Murder exists as a charge, it is not in her charge" when talking about homicide. Not sure though.

Jailing someone for even 3 months without process is completely insane

Not "without process", "without trail". It's not uncommon for prisoners being held 3 months only to have the charges dropped (regardless of nationality).

Afterwards you go on a journey dismissing this heinous court system as okay

"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". Not saying there aren't any issues with the way Palestinians are treated in the Israeli court system, but you made some specific claims that I disagree with, and didn't give any evidence.

Don’t look up the Amnesty report damming Israel for killing their hostages without process in jail.

Sorry, but I actually did try to look it up, and wasn't able to. Could you please link to it?

The closet thing I was able to find is this, which refers to Palestinian prisoners as, well, prisoners. So even if it's not the right report, it would seem Amnesty themselves don't refer to Palestinian prisoners as "hostages". Could we at least agree on that?

BTW, I didn't read through the full report, but I find myself agreeing to most of the thing said (most weren't news to me).

I'm not trying to say Israel did nothing wrong. Israel has done PLENTY of immoral things, and is currently doing plenty of immoral things. I'm saying that Israel isn't some devil that wants to kill all Palestinians, and has zero regard for their lives (though some Israeli are). It's extremely complicated.

The op in this thread said: “The Palestinians are getting combatants who were arrested for other attacks by and large."

Right, but you said "The misinformation is calling all the released Palestinians combatants. That seems like the Israeli’s talking point here, which is a fabrication." I have no reason to assume OP is Israeli. But even if he is, he isn't representative of most Israeli sources (to the best of my knowledge).

Is there an index for which apartheid states are better than others? That seems like an interesting index.

I was referring to the The Economist Democracy Index. As of 2022, Israel is in the high end of flawed democracies (between Portugal and the US). Not saying that's the end-all-be-all of democratic Indices, but it is the most widely known and commonly used, so it's a good rule of thumb.

You're right, calling all the released prisoners "Palestinians combatants" would be wrong. Can you please point me to a source calling them that? I only saw something similar in far right Israeli news sites, who call them "terrorists" (all other sites call them "prisoners").

Yes, all of these people are charged by the Israeli state, an apartheid state oppressing the Palestinian people. They can make up whatever charges they want. Who believes them?

If we assume a state-wide conspiracy, any state can make up whatever charges it wants. There's no real way to prove that's wrong. However, there are a few indicators I can think of - what's the democracy index of said state? is that state's judiciary system regarded internationally as being generally good? Do other democratic states believe said state? Has said state been caught in many lies regarding its judiciary system?

Going by these indicators, Israel's status is at least OK. Not perfect, and if you'd like I can point out quite a few issues, especially regarding the treatment of Palestinians, but they do not "make up" charges as a general modus operandi.

Yeah, I'd like to address that.

This message turned out a bit longer than I intended, but I really tried to give the best answer I can.

First off, the video takes statements from the Palestinians released and conveyed them as-is. It's extremely hard to verify things like that, so there's absolutely no basis saying my comment is a "blatant lie" unless you automatically assume every Palestinians statement is the objective truth. If that's the case, feel free to skip the rest of this post as there's nothing I can say to make you re-evaluate your position.

I could just say "If you claim Palestinians have been kidnapped without any evidence or charges and held as hostage, please show me some evidence instead of unsubstantiated claims made by a party who has a vested interest in making false claims". I thing that's a valid claim, but as you can see, I do have a bit more to say. I've actually tried to check her statement when the video was posted earlier (not so I could argue about it, just to be informed).

First off, many of the Palestinians approved for release have been charged with serious crimes (some, though they might not have been release yet, as Israel is trying to release them from least serious to most serious). Even Al-Jazeera said most Palestinians released were charged with "small" crimes such as throwing rocks. So which is it - Are Palestinians being kidnapped without charges, or are they being charged with minor crimes? If some were kidnapped and some were legally arrested, would calling them "hostages" not be as inaccurate as calling them "prisoners"?

There's only one Palestinian who said she was held without charges, not "many" as you claimed. It's also worth noting she said she was "due to be released in October", so I think it's odd calling her a "hostage" (hostages usually don't get released if a certain time has passed. that's more correctly called a "detainee").

Going from her age and arrest date, there's only one 24yo female Palestinian who was detained in October and approved for release. I won't try to write her name in English, as there's 0% chance I'll get it right, but in Hebrew it's רגד נשאת צלאח אל פני (copy-paste the name to find her details, which can be translated via google translate).

Assuming that's her, she was charged with "State security - other", which is a general charge that can include espionage, giving information to the enemy, inciting violence and more. I will admit it's a general charge, and the fact she was due to be released shows the Israeli state wasn't able to make it stick.

So why did she say she was being held without a charge? Don't know. Maybe in her mind "state security" isn't a valid charge. Maybe she was exaggerating. Maybe she's lying (yes, even oppressed people can lie). Maybe she was told her charge would be amended (that makes sense. As I said, "State security" is a general crime). Or maybe I found the wrong person. The point is, I did really try to find more information based on the video, and was unable to substantiate her claims. If you have any other source for similar claims, I'd be very interested to hear about them.

I live in Israel, and I'll agree that a lot of times Palestinians are treated badly. I'm even prone to think the person in the video should have been freed after 3 months instead of 12. That said, there's a far cry from that to saying Palestinians are kidnapped without evidence and being held without trial.

The question was about why are Palestinians in Israel are called "prisoners" and Israelis in Gaza are "hostages", in the context of the people exchanged during the truce. The person I replied to said some "prisoners" in Israel are held without trial, to which I replied they are not called "prisoners", and are not part of the exchange.

So... could you explain the point you're trying to make? If that's just some general point about Israel treating Palestinians unjustly, that's fine (I actually agree with you to some extent), but I don't see how that has to do with the difference between two specific groups of Palestinians and Israelis.

Yes, but also no.

Palestinians who are held without trial are held in administrative detention, that's usually done if the person poses an immediate danger, but the evidence isn't up to the legal standard (a judge still has to approve the arrest). It's also used against Jewish citizens (though admittedly much less. IIRC there are two Jews held in administrative detention right now).

Absolutely none of the Palestinians held in administrative detention are about to be set free, and they aren't regarded as "standard" prisoners (they are always referred as "administrative detainees", never "prisoners").

Hi, Israeli here. You didn't really point out any misinformation, the linked article just gives some (IMO wrong and even misleading) context.

The majority of the rest of the names are of boys aged 16-18. However, there are also boys as young as 14 on the list.

The 14 year old kid was charged for hostile sabotage activity, gathering or association, attacking a police officer under serious circumstances, throwing stones, negligence and general recklessness, maliciously or negligently causing damage to property, arson on nationalistic grounds, weapons/ammunition/explosives. Also, it's worth noting his trial was ongoing.

Prisoners have been convicted of crimes including carrying and manufacturing knives and daggers. Other common offenses detailed in Israel’s list include [...]

Ehh... technically true, but very misleading. Usually, there are a few charges, some more serious than others. The 14yo kid could be described as "charged with negligence and general recklessness", but that wouldn't be the whole picture. Here's a link to a list of 300 prisoners due to be released. It's in Hebrew, but copy-pasting into google translate is good enough to understand the charges:

https://www.gov.il/he/departments/dynamiccollectors/is-db?skip=0

In the first page, there are 2 prisoners charged with carrying and manufacturing knives and daggers. Both are also charged with attempted murder (one is 17 years old, btw).

And regarding "associating with hostile/unknown organisations", from what I could tell, this means that the prisoner was charged with being affiliated with Hamas. Hamas is considered a terrorist group in the US, UK, Canada and Australia (Not to mention they massacred more than 1,000 citizens). So this might be my Israeli bias speaking, but... what's unreasonable with throwing them to prison? Would being affiliated with ISIS or Al-Qaeda not carry a prison sentence?

“The main alleged crime for these detentions is stone-throwing, which can carry a 20-year sentence in prison for Palestinian children,” said a report published in July by children’s rights organisation, Save the Children.

Yes, "can carry". A 20 year sentence is only applicable if the rocks were thrown at a moving vehicle with intent to cause harm. without proving intent, the sentence is 10 years. Children are not explicitly mentioned (though the reality is that most rock throwers are minors). In practice, the courts try to avoid sentencing minors who are charged mainly with rock throwing to prison, and even when they are sentenced to prison it's for a few months.

There's a bit of confusion between owning a company and owning the shares. A company can buy shares of itself, but that does not grant it control of itself. Let's say Cute Puppies inc. has 200 shares (so 200 shares = 100% ownership). You and I have 50 shares each, and the rest is distributed among many other holders (we'll call them "the public"). So, we each own 25% of the company and the public collectively owns 50%. Now Cute Puppies inc. bought all shares held by the public, so it has 100 shares and we each have 50 shares. But a company can't control itself by definition (it still has the shares and can sell them, but it can't use those shares to vote, appoint directors etc.), so now we each own 50% of the company.

Right, so, let's talk naval ships from the age of sail. There's no need for two sailing ships to face each other also, but that's inevitably how ships will meet on the ocean. The HMS Enterprise spots the HMS Defiant. They plot a course towards the Defiant. Defiant will eventually spot the Enterprise, and will alter its course. Both ships will meet with their bows facing each other. Same logic applies with spaceships, with two issues:

1. There's actually no need for two spaceships to meet in order to talk or transfer people. I'll hand wave that away saying that's standard procedure, as the cost in time and energy to go from the beaming range to visual range is negligible, and even in the 24th century it's a good idea for ships in the middle of the vastness of space be as close to one another as possible in case of emergency.
2. While both ships will change their pitch and yaw to face each other, there's no need to change the roll. This can also be hand waved - while there's probably a standard, absolute "up" (say, using the spin axis of the galaxy) altering the roll will allow both ships to use the same subjective "up".