In many newspapers and media around the world [BBC, Telegraph] the words abducted and kidnapped are being used to describe the actions by Hamas against an occupying soldier.
Everyone seems to be calling for his immediate release.
The al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas, has denied capturing a missing Israeli soldier after Barack Obama, the US president, called for his release as a precondition for further ceasefire talks.The UN also called for the release of Goldin. In a statement, a spokesman for Ban Ki-moon, said: "The [UN] secretary-general demands the immediate and unconditional release of the captured soldier."
Hamas deny capturing him and say he died as a result of the conflict "We lost contact with the group who made the suicide mission near Rafah after it was done. And we believe everyone in this group was killed by an Israeli air strike including the Israeli soldier who the Israelis are talking about having disappeared." Now I suppose how you regard this latest conflict.1] As a war.
2] As a police action against an occupied territory
I cannot find in the western press how many member of Hamas that have been "abducted" or "kidnapped" by Israel in the current conflict, certainly nobody has called for their immediate release; just the number of prisoners taken.
The army arrested some 270 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip during the week of the ground invasion there. A senior IDF officer said most of them were released when they were not found to be members of militant groups.The IDF gave no information about those still in custody or where they are being held. The Shin Bet security service is interrogating about 20 of the prisoners, who are denied access to lawyers.
The use of words matter, the Israelis and they take prisoners, whereas the Palestinians kidnap Israeli soldiers even if these same soldiers are occupying Palestinian land during the conflict. This reasoning then follows; Hamas use human shields, Israel use a technological shield which the US helps pay for. Palestinians elected to choose a terrorist government to protect them, whereas Israelis elected one to ensure their security.Now both governments involved in this conflict were elected, both governments seem to have military forces albeit somewhat mismatched so it would seem to meet the criteria defining a war. Certainly the leveling urban areas by terrestrial, aerial and naval bombardment would seem to support this hypothesis.
So why are one side taken prisoner, as in prisoner of war and the other side abduct and kidnap? Why is their global demands for the release of one and silence with respect to the other?
Propaganda pure and simple and the use of words seems to be coordinated to legitimize one and delegitimize the other. One side has the right to self defense the other has the right to be occupied. This has been the story for generations in the Israel Palestine conflict, one side has certainly won the propaganda war as well as the territorial one. No wonder one side feels abandoned and abused.
I will repeat myself, there seems to be a real need to change the dialogue if peace is to be achieved in the foreseeable future. There needs to be a real change in the way words are unequally applied, I am sure if I called the IDF terrorists there would be quite a lot of objection, if I termed their taking of prisoners kidnapping, many would object.
Personally I hold the vicious warmongers on both sides with utter contempt, I regard killing as murder no matter what tortured reasoning is employed. This also goes for our own vicious warmongers at home and others around the world. The use of self defense has been misused far too often to justify naked aggression both recently and historically. Perhaps it is necessary to find other words that fit the reality better?
If we change the words used perhaps there is hope that the dystopian reality is changed.