Noa Argamani, an Israeli woman freed from Hamas captivity in Gaza in June, said on Friday that her injuries were caused by an Israeli air strike during her rescue operation, not by a Hamas attack.
Speaking to diplomats from G7 countries in Tokyo on Wednesday, Argamani detailed her ordeal after she was taken captive by Palestinian armed groups during the 7 October attack. However, two days later, she issued a statement on Instagram, saying that some of her remarks had been misquoted and taken out of context.
Contrary to some Israeli media reports, Argamani clarified that she was not beaten or had her hair shaved by Palestinian fighters.
“[Hamas members] did not hit me while I was in captivity, nor did they cut my hair; I was injured by the collapse of a wall caused by an [Israeli] Air Force pilot,” she added.
Clearly, this woman is Hamas. /s
More seriously though, Hamas not mistreating her beyond the initial act of kidnapping makes sense. The entire purpose of taking hostages is to use the threat of harm as leverage. So there’s incentive to keep them in relatively good condition, because as soon as anything happens to them that leverage is lost. Of course, people don’t always remember that, and the whole thing relies on all parties involved at least pretending to act in good faith.
Any idea why Hamas doesn’t execute hostages? Not to sound callous or anything. Just curious if you know if their religion forbids it or something
Because if Hamas executed the hostages, they’d have even less bargaining power than they already do. Unfortunately, Netanyahu doesn’t seem to care much about the hostages anyway.
If the hostages are released he’ll need a whole new reason to continue bombing!
His only reason is that it keeps him in power.
Except that they don’t. The ultimate goal of the war according to Netanyahu is to “destroy Hamas”, no elaboration on what that means tho. Securing the hostages is just an optional mission and he made that very clear in the past.
Hamas would have never gotten that strong in the first place if Netanyahu weren’t appalled by the PLO’s stance of a two country solution and had not worked actively against them. He does not want to accept a state of Palestine, holding true to the old Likud manifesto “Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty.”
It’s funny how that stance is acceptable when it’s Israel that threatens and enacts genocide.
No
look the hostages were weak, they don’t deserve to live, just like the victims of the holocaust.
don’t look at me like that, it was the Israeli Minister of national security that said this shit, can’t I go quoting the only democracy in the m.east’s government?
That would defeat the whole point of taking hostages in the first place.
Seems they didn’t count on Israel being willing to kill hostages.
They claim that it does.
If they wanted to kill the hostages, they would have just killed them instead of taking them hostage. The whole point of a hostage is that it increases your power at the negotiating table. It gives you leverage. The hostage is something to trade in exchange for concessions, or the threat of harm to force the opponent’s cooperation. Neither of those work if the hostage has been killed or harmed, because any bargaining power you would have had from holding them goes right out the window as soon as the hostage is killed.
Because they aren’t AQ. They’re actually looking to negotiate things.
deleted by creator
Keeping in mind that I’m not an expert on Islam by any metric, I don’t think there’s any religious prohibitions, because executing people was something that ISIS was notorious for. I’ll also note that this tendency was one of the reasons everyone else in the region dogpiled them.
Fundamentalists picking and choosing which rules apply and which individuals are considered valid targets isn’t a good way to understand the tenets of a religion. Which of course means Hamas may also pick and choose, but just because ISIS did something doesn’t mean it’s the norm.
Removed by mod
Removed for using the slur “retard”, please edit in another adjective so I can re-approve your comment.
I cannot edit a deleted comment, so here is a revision of what I posted:
ISIS did not enact Sharia law when it comes to war. Their unhinged interpretation of the Qu’ran (they did not accept not the full thing ofc just the passages that they deemed relevant for their agenda) was basically that everyone that does not accept their ultra-fanatic extremism is infidel. And then they proclaimed Jihad and in Jihad, infidels are cleansed (also not the meaning of Jihad in the Qu’ran, but ISIS’ interpretation).
It’s best to forget about ISIS when talking about rules of Islam, they are about as much Islamic as the KKK are Protestant Christians.
Ah, noted for next time. Thanks for your patience.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod