LGF excerpts the following passage from a current Reuter's
article:
The smallest of the three militant groups, the previously unknown Islamic Army, said there would be no further information released on 19-year-old Shalit, who was seized in a cross-border raid on June 25. They sent conflicting signals about his fate.
"Whether he will be killed or not killed, we will not disclose any information ... Discussion is closed," said Islamic Army spokesman Abu al-Muthana.
But he later said: "We do not kill captives. Our Islam requires that we treat captives well and fairly." He declined to say whether Shalit was alive or dead.
Osama al-Muzaini, a Hamas political leader, said the militant groups have withdrawn their representatives from the talks with the Egyptian mediators.
He compared the fate of Shalit to that of Israeli airman Ron Arad, who has been missing since bailing out of his plane over southern Lebanon 20 years ago. There has been growing speculation Arad is dead.
"They (the militant factions) may kill him (Shalit), take him to another country or may hide him. All options are open," al-Muzaini said.
Notice the
BBC treatment of essentially the same information:
Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades and the Popular Resistance Committees - as well as the Islamic Army - say they are holding Cpl Shalit.
After a deadline to free about 1,500 Palestinian prisoners expired, an Islamic Army spokesman told the BBC "all options" were open to the militants, except killing Cpl Shalit. He said that was because the captors were Muslims who did not treat their captives as others, such as the US, did.
But he said: "The file is closed - there will be no more negotiations, no more information will be released, there will be no mediation."
No mention of a death threat here. Did both al-Muzaini (the Hamas spokesman) and the Islamic Army spokeman use the same expression, "all options"? Complete freedom from moral restraints provides complete freedom of action, doesn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment