frankPodmore

This is a perfectly fine argument that I already agreed with a mere two comments ago when I said:

I don’t see that the UK has much leverage, but that being the case, we ought to be just doing the moral thing.

With bold, this time. You know, in case it helps.

I don't think so. Even Netanyahu's response to this shows he's going to ignore us completely.

Yes, that's what I said in the comment you're replying to.

My argument is that they're not hostages, so I'm glad we agree.

I don't know why you've introduced this new argument about whether they're 'prisoners' but I suggest you take it up with, e.g., The Palestinian Prisoners Association.

Okay, but, not to be excessively pedantic here, the question was not 'Are they both kidnappers?' (which, if a state can be said to kidnap people, then yes, I agree, they are), but 'Are all the captives hostages?' which, as I keep saying, is not at all clear.

But this isn't even a comparison which makes the Israelis look good! With hostages there's an implied intent to eventually release them (in exchange for whatever you want to extort). One of the reasons the Palestinians held by the Israelis aren't hostages is that Israel clearly has no intention of releasing them.

Yeah, it's pretty weak sauce. I don't see that the UK has much leverage, but that being the case, we ought to be just doing the moral thing. As I said in the OP, I do wonder how the chat with Trump - who, gods help us, is one of the few people who does have leverage - fed into the calculation of this statement.

I mean, as I said elsewhere, there's plenty to get annoyed about without also imagining new things. If an organisation kidnaps a bunch of civilians with a view to using them for extortion, those captives are hostages, and it is different to when even that very same organisation captures soldiers in a war, because those captives are POWs. Words do actually have a meaning! Not every usage of words is a matter of some overarching nefariousness!

But not all the hostages were adults, nor were they even all Israelis, conscripted or not.

POWs aren't captured for the purposes of negotiation, that's the point. The Allies negotiated with the Axis over the release and transfer of POWs after WW2, but no one would call them hostages, on either side.

Look, as I said, Israel's government is terrible and treats people appallingly, but the answer to your original question really just is: because Hamas kidnapped those people intending to use them as hostages.

One of the reasons Palestinian activists want recognition of statehood is that it will make it easier to obtain those things.

The caveats already make it pretty weak, we don't need to come up with other reasons!

Well, Hamas explicitly kidnapped those people with the aim of using them for negotiations, whereas the people held by Israel are either prisoners or POWs.

Obviously, I don't trust the Israeli government an inch in terms of the guilt of those prisoners, fairness of the process or the conditions they're being held in, but there is a difference just as a matter of definition.

Famously, Bob Vylan and Kneecap both got in trouble for chanting 'Recognise the Palestinian statehood at a time and in a fashion that maximises the chances of a peaceful two-state solution'. It was a bit of a mouthful, granted.

Seriously, though. AFAIK, neither the BBC nor the UK government had anything much to do with Kneecap's statements, which for the record were (my italics):

"Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinian people," followed by: "It is being enabled by the US government who arm and fund Israel despite their war crimes," and a final screen added: "[Expletive] Israel. Free Palestine." During the performance, band member Mo Chara said: "The Irish not so long ago were persecuted at the hands of the Brits, but we were never bombed from the... skies with nowhere to go. The Palestinians have nowhere to go." The band also led the audience in chants of: "Free, free Palestine".

Only the 'Free Palestine' line seems to have much to do with a two-state solution, and then only tangentially. I don't personally think any of what they said is untrue or problematic in any way - but it also has nothing to do with the BBC or the UK Government.

As for Bob Vylan, the specific phrase that caused controversy was 'Death to the IDF' - again, nothing to do with a two-state solution. The main censoring force there was the BBC, which has nothing to do with whether the UK Government recognises Palestine. Again, for me, while a much more aggressive comment, I don't think this crosses the line of either hate speech or incitement (and I'm right, because they haven't been prosecuted for either - I don't think a case has even been brought). But it's got nothing to do with the government now moving (too slowly and tentatively, IMO) towards recognition of Palestine.