This is factually and morally ridiculous.
Kidnapped victims were put on a starvation diet, resulting in some children’s loss of 15 percent of their body weight. Some children were burned with a motorcycle exhaust pipe to identify them if they escaped. Some reported beatings and death threats. Many were deprived of medicine and proper medical care. (A woman who had been shot in the arm was treated by a veterinarian. So much for the excuse that hostages revealed on hospital videotape were there for quality care.) They were kept in darkness, forced to speak in only hushed tones. Children were forced to watch video footage of the Oct. 7 carnage.
“They were exhausted and depleted. Strong in spirit, but weak in body. Some had injuries from their abduction that they suffered with through their captivity,” one Israeli doctor told the Times of Israel.
Even more alarming, “at least 10 of the Israeli civilians released by Hamas, both men and women, were sexually assaulted or abused while in captivity, the Associated Press reported Wednesday,” according to the Times of Israel. “In a report detailing allegations of severe and widespread sexual abuse by Hamas terrorists during their October 7 onslaught and later against hostages, a doctor who treated some of the 110 hostages released from captivity told the AP that at least 10 men and women among those freed were sexually assaulted or abused.”
The Jerusalem Post also reported on some of the hostages’ experiences:
Yocheved Lifschitz, 85, who was released from Hamas captivity after 17 days, also spoke about those terrifying days. “I hardly slept in the tunnels. I had a problem with the food and in the last days, I got sick. They were afraid I would cause a sickness in the tunnels,” she said, “Every day is also critical because of the conditions, and the living conditions there are very difficult and the oxygen in the tunnels is running out.”
Ditza Heiman, 84, told the Jerusalem Post: “These are conditions of starvation, you could say. As time passes, the damage grows, and the body’s ability to endure diminishes. It’s a matter of life and death, a mental danger. They must be brought out immediately.”
We should call this what it is. Torture (as applied in some instances to enemy combatants in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) is defined as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act … or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind.” And, even if not torture per se, the terrorists’ conduct surely meets the definition of “cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment” also prohibited by international law.
Where is the outrage, the U.S. media coverage and the condemnation of these war crimes? Again — as with the vicious sexual crimes and torture of Israeli women — too many ignore or minimize Israelis’ suffering and Hamas’s vicious atrocities as if that is necessary to support innocent Palestinians. But empathy is not finite. One can decry the loss of innocent Palestinian life (resulting from Hamas’s embedding terrorists in civilian areas) and also decry obscene treatment of Israelis. Then again, it might be reflective of nothing more than grotesque antisemitism, fed by the constant effort to demonize Israel with the false accusation it is a “colonizer” or bent on “genocide.”
The return of all hostages is a precondition to any lasting cease-fire. Civilized people must demand hostages be returned and that all still in captivity receive Red Cross visits. Anything less enables war crimes. Anything else communicates the message that Hamas can act with impunity.
Distinguished person of the week
Sandra Day O’Connor was a model public servant and Supreme Court justice others should aspire to be. She served in the Arizona state legislature and state court. As The Post’s obituary noted, “with no overarching philosophy or agenda, no affiliation with a movement or cause and no previous position in any administration in Washington,” she arrived at the court with an understanding of how political branches operate and a preference for pragmatic decisions. After leaving the court, she dedicated herself to public service through the Sandra Day O’Connor Institute for American Democracy that champions civics education and civil discourse.
On the high court, she was instrumental in preserving the constitutional right to an abortion and affirmative action (which she argued in 2003 should continue for 25 years). She supported due process rights for enemy combatants in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. She agreed to strike down a law prohibiting sex between same-sex partners in Lawrence v. Texas. Still, she was no liberal, siding with employers in many labor matters, with prosecutors in many criminal cases and gun owners on Second Amendment issues. And in maybe her most criticized opinion, she sided with George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore.
On religion cases, she urged (in words Justice Stephen G. Breyer recently echoed) enforcement of the anti-establishment clause to avoid sectarian strife. She asked in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky: “Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?” When the right-wing majority now echoes Christian nationalist views (e.g., applying Christian dogma to invalidate abortion rights), this sounds quaint.
O’Connor was not a predictable vote for liberals or conservatives; she acted as a judge, not a partisan. She candidly expressed regret for leaving the court (to care for her ailing husband), a move that led to Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s appointment and the court’s sharp rightward turn.
As with other “swing justices” (e.g. Lewis F. Powell Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy), she held enormous power. Nevertheless, she wielded her power wisely, embodying an ideal judicial temperament. She did not impugn other justices, carefully examined each case’s facts, searched for consensus, respected precedent and considered cases’ impact on real people. These proclivities are, sadly, scare among the current right-wing majority.
We were fortunate to have O’Connor on the court; she has been sorely missed.
“Hanukkah commemorates a battle won, despite astonishing odds, by the Maccabees against the Seleucid monarch Antiochus and those Jews allied with him, who appeared ready to abandon their tradition,” Rabbi David Wolpe wrote. “But later rabbis, uncomfortable with military-themed celebrations, focused the holiday on the miracle unmentioned in the book of Maccabees — that in the Temple, after it was cleaned out, a cruz of oil that should have lasted one day lasted eight.”
The real miracle, Wolpe suggested, is Jews’ survival over thousands of years (stateless for the vast majority of the time, always a tiny population) despite efforts to eradicate them. It’s tempting to see Hanukkah in terms of today’s political events, but as the rabbis intended, the full meaning of Hanukkah comes after the fighting stops.
The holiday is about turning darkness into light, despair into hope. “There are moments when all of us are afraid, when we feel hopeless and alone. Learn the lesson of Hanukkah, the holiday of rededication: No matter how many times you have done it before once again, when you face the dark, light a candle,” Wolpe advised. That’s a message for people of all faiths or no faith at all. Chag Sameach to all celebrating.
Every Wednesday at noon, I host a live Q&A with readers. Read a transcript of this week’s Q&A, or submit a question for the next one.
Guest: Do American Muslims want the GOP to control Gaza? Do Muslim Americans think things would be better if the GOP controlled U.S. policy in Israel and Gaza?
Jennifer Rubin: It’s an excellent question. Perhaps as they hear more about former president Donald Trump’s plans to enact an even wider Muslim ban or Republicans’ proposal to expel Palestinian Americans, they will reconsider rash statements made during an emotional time.
Credit: Source link
