A casual reader might think we at Samizdata are one-sided in Israel’s favour. Not at all. We’re for Israeli’s and Palestinians to sort out their differences one way or the other. We are for the continued existence of a democracy (Israel) and the creation of a new liberal democracy (Palestine).
There are even times when I side unreservedly with Palestinians. The quote taken from this item:
“People in one of the homes targeted for demolition threw hand grenades and fired shots at approaching Israeli soldiers — marking the first time a demolition was met by serious resistance. The seven adults in the house surrendered after a four-hour standoff and troops blew up the building.”
rather strikes a chord with me. I imagine the same will be true of almost any libertarian. It is simply a given the people in the house were in the right in their use violent force in defense of their home.
There was another incident within the last few weeks where Palestinians blew up an Israeli tank. Whichever side you are on, you clearly cannot call blowing up a tank a terrorist act. I can’t even imagine a circumstance in which blowing up a tank could be so construed. When I hear some one say such a thing, in my mind’s eye I see a big flashing red sign over their head, blinking “PROPAGANDA ALERT! PROPAGANDA ALERT!”. I would say the same even if it were an American M1. While I would much prefer our guys got their guys first, I am not going to resort to name callling when the other side happens to get their licks in first.
On the other hand… there is no excuse, ever, for whatever reason, of walking into a nightclub, bus, train station or student union filled with nothing non-combatants going about their normal day to day lives… and blowing yourself up. THAT is a crime against humanity. The fellows who fail to kill themselves should be hung, drawn and quartered, in whatever order experts declare to be the optimally painful one.
But back to the Defenders Of Property. They have my whole-hearted support in any such action. Death to the Bulldozers!
It’s nice to see something more even handed than 99% of what I read about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the Blogosphere. Most pundits seem to nakedly partisan to recognise this is an ugly war in which neither side has a monopoly on good or evil.
When civilians wage war they will inheret the rewards of war. Palestine reminds me of the brat who hits someone bigger than him, then hides behind mother’s skirt to escape retribution.
There are worse forms of retaliation.
Blowing up houses is not necessarily unjustified, attacking tanks is not necessarily justified. Context is critical. The Israelis destroy houses because doing so is a deterrent to terror attacks committed by people who are willing to die, and is more humane than jailing or killing terrorists’ relatives.
Blowing up a bunch of 20-something Israeli conscripts or middle-aged familiy men on reserve duty is no less terrorism because the men happened to be in a tank. I don’t think the Jewish terrorists who blew up the Kind David hotel (then a British military headquarters) were justified and this case isn’t much different except in scale.
When all you have is a hammer, pretty soon everything starts to look like a nail. The Israeli-Palistinian conflict is not, whatever else it might be, an extension of the war on private property by Western states. It is a military tactic, albeit a desperate one, to deter terrorism against civilians in Israel. Blowing up a house, or for that matter leveling a city, is “collateral damage” to the main goal of stopping the murder of civilians.
It is a drastic measure, but one wonders if the by now commonplace images of Palestinians dancing in the streets when children are murdered by suicide bombers has made such a response by the Israelis inevitable.
Don’t ends as well as means have to be taken into account when assessing whether an act can be declared terrorist? If your aim is not so much military defeat as to create a climate of terror in the population in order to overthrow their democratic system of government, as is the case for Arafat’s vermin, I think that edges things a long way towards terrorism, even if one particular act on that route is the destruction of a wholly military vehicle and its passengers.
I also fail to see how a suicide-bombers’ family defending their home by violent means is any more (or less) justified than a murderer’s family using violence to stop the police arresting their son, or a bank robber’s family using violence to stop the police seizing their ill-gotten gains. What possible defence is there for such actions except perhaps that it is the natural response of most people in such a situation?
To Tim Hall, would also say that even-handedness in itself is no virtue. The two things you are being even-handed with must also be remotely comparable. An Islamofascist kleptocracy led by the terrorist who invented plane hijackings and inspired Bin Laden, and who has turned down every peace deal offered him in favour of war and terror, is not comparable to a tiny democracy which has in its history sought only peace with its neighbours. To be “even-handed” between Israel and the Palestinian Authority is the most immature and uninformed response – that of the ignoramus who at first glance says both sides are to blame, or the exasperated mother who tells her kids they are both as bad as each other. In this conflict, an “even-handed” response cannot be the product of considered analysis by anyone who believes in liberty, democracy and justice.
I’m puzzled. Dale, you’re writing from Belfast. Was blowing up a convoy of soldiers at Warrenpoint terrorism or not? Was shooting Bdr. Steven Restorick terrorism?
Destruction of the houses of suicide bombers is wholly justifed. It is an attack on the morale of the terrorists, and damages their infrastructure. The people that blow up tanks and snipe at solders are the same ones who blow up nightclubs. They should be given no quarter. Anything short of mass deportation of the Palestinians into Jordan is valid in these circumstances. A narrowly legalistic stance would lead inevitably to the conclusion that under the terms of the Geneva Convention, the Israelis are well within their rights to summarily execute any suspected Palestinian terrorist they capture.
Well said Peter !
Dale,
When terrorist kill 700 of you people people in suicide murders you must do something in self defense. You blow up their houses, you send tanks to patrol their cities, you try to arrest or kill the terrorists and their leaders. You impose blockades which cause suffering and deprivation. It may not look nice to outside observers, hell! it does not look nice to you!
But you have to do it. Passivity is not an option if you wish to survive.
There is a reasonable logic behind the Israeli’s actions. You make the suicide bomber’s families so miserable as to discourage future bombers? Get a check from Saddam and the Sauds? Better spend it on a tent, because your home will be rubble.
And the Pals have been getting the hint. Some would-be bombers have been turned in by their families.
Yup… but is killing 3 time more palestiniens the best way to gain the peace?(more than 2000)
It is Israel who triggered this war by continuing the colonization after Oslo I and more specificly by the great idea Ariel Sharon had to go take a walk at a mosque… What are they ready to do to stop it?
The palestiniens aren’t worst than the israeliens And I think Tim Hall is right.
Tell yourself something, any person have the right to fight again an oppressive government and it’s what palestiniens are doing(in a disgusting way… but do they really have another option?). What are you asking them to do, to let Israel do wathever they want?
”which has in its history sought only peace with its neighbours”
True, but not with the palestiniens…
Why did they feel the need to colonize? If they really wanted peace, they would have stopped that a long time ago. They want to control Cisjordanie and Gaza
The colonies use 1,7% of the territory of Cisjordanie but control 41.9%… humm humm…
At Camp David the Palestinien accepted a pact that would have let them only 22% of the ancient Palestine but Israel didn’t wanted to let them more than 9% and that would have cut Cisjordanie into 3 pieces…
But yeah, it’s all the fault of palestiniens and israeliens are soooo gentle, peaceful, cooperative, etc etc etc
I must agree on the definition of terrorism. The attack on the Marines in Lebanon was not terrorism; neither was the attack on the USS Cole. Both were military action (admittedly guerilla action).
However, I cannot see much equality between the Israeli and Palestinian positions. There has *never been* a nation of Palestine. Most of the “Palestinians” were Jordanians until the 1967 war, at which point Israel, in self defense, took the West Bank.
Most of Israel would love for the West Bank to just go away – they are not Imperialists, except for the most extreme. Yasser Arafat himself is not a Palestinian (whatever that is) but an Egyptian! (Don’t believe me? – check it out.)
Also, most current “peace” proposals would make Jews the only people who are not allowed to live in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. There is something vaguely familiar about such rules… hmmm…
Oh, and the Libertarian view of the house demolition is utter nonsense. I am sure you just had a senior moment or a brain fart!
Finally… I gotta plug my site! Come one, come all to Useful Fools for current articles on Useless Tools (human shields) and of special interest to Americans, the Transportation Stupidity Administration and the new addition to the recommended Home Ready Kit.
” You make the suicide bomber’s families so miserable as to discourage future bombers?”
That’s pretty bent, actually. It’s just another form of taking it out on civilians, and — if that’s the whole strategy — it won’t do. It really is a form of terrorism (hassling non-combatants to affect policy).
There’s a difference between guerilla tactics and terrorism, aside from the essential rightness or wrongness of the cause.
At Oslo it was agreed between Palestinians and Israel to solve the conflict by negociacions, not by suicide murder. To rennounce violence.
Who started this round of violence ? Who keeps it up ? Which side demands a cease fire and which refuses ?
“they had no choice” ?? –
They had the choice of sticking to what they have commited themselves to, they still have this choice any time, any moment, whenever they wish.
Ghaleon,you should go read some background to this conflict,such as professor Francisco Gil-White’s essay at emperors-clothes.com.It’s a leftist site,by the way.Remember that it was Yasser Arafat who rejected a peace treaty that would have given the Palestinian arabs the Gaza Strip,95% of the West Bank plus half of Jerusalem.I think the essay I refer to will explain you why.
I’m not even going to try to answer one by one. But I absolutely stand by what I said. Bulldozing a family’s home (I have the impression it often doesn’t even have to be a home with so much as one real terrorist relation) is an act of terrorism itself. It is an intentional attack on civilians with the intent of creating fear. Likewise, opening fire on kids throwing rocks at tanks is not on. What are they afraid of? That someone is going to scratch the camo paint?
By all means fire a missile into the car or the house of a known leader. I had no problem with the ambush of one of them. That is a military act.
Of COURSE I think people who’s house is about to bulldozed should fight back. It is their right to do so. If I were in their position, I would do so and it would have little to do with any other political position I took.
As to the things which happened in Northern Ireland, or anywhere else for that matter… I judge things very very simply. If A and B are combantants, then (A kills B) is morally equal to (B kills A) so long as neither A nor B has surrendered and an excessive number of civilians is not put at risk where excessive is dependant on just how important/dangerous A or B is. This is regardless of whether I myself am an A or a B.
War is an evil thing. Sometimes people may fight for evil causes. But so long as the fight is kept between combatants to as great an extent as possible then they are not criminals, merely soldiers in a bad cause.
That goes for IRA, UDA, Palestinians or whomever. Treat them one way if they fight clean; treat them wholly different when they don’t… and place the other side under exactly the same set of rules by which you would like the other side to live.
Bulldozing houses and machinegunning rock throwing kids is not professional soldiering. I expect more from the Israeli Army. They are capable of better than that.
I don’t particularly expect it from the other side any more than Americans fighting the Japanese expected them to reciprocate.
War is hell. First of all, house demolitions have proven to be an effective tactic against suicide bombings. Before Israel instituted its policies, mothers used to encourage their sons to go off and blow up Israeli children. Now, they realize the possibilities–and sons and mothers are more reluctant. Second, most of these houses being blown up are those of active members of terrorist organizations. They’re houses where vital arms and communications equipment and documents are kept. Israel has never sent troops into Gaza with the intention of blowing up random houses. Third, the actions in Jenin last April (remember the huge blood libel of the “Jenin Massacre”) were hugely complicated by the fact that nearly all of the snipers fired from private homes. Often, rockets and gunfire come from the tops of private Palestinian homes. What choice does Israel have but to take out the places from which the gunfire and bombs originate? What else can Israel do but destroy the bomb factories, the weapon garages that masquerade as private homes? Israel has tried the path of peace, it has tried the path of understanding. And as a side note, think of what most countries would do if people refused to evacuate a wanted building and began firing back. Would they stand there and wait for a surrender? Of course not–they’d bomb the shit out of the house, residents and all. If Israeli soldiers wanted to efficiently destroy that house and send a message, they could have simply placed the dynamite by the door and covered their ears. But they didn’t, because of the conviction of morality and the law of war which dictates Israeli military policy.
I do not argue that if a military operation comes under fire, it can’t return fire as necessary to suppress enemy fire. That goes without saying.
It also goes without saying that if a bulldozer were to approach my house, I would be quite happy to have a few buried explosives to send it sky high and into pieces before it got there.
What you are saying Justin, is that terror tactics are effective. No one in the world doubts that. We *know* terror tactics work.
That doesn’t make them right, no matter who uses them.
And incidentally, you are generalizing statements into things I did not say. I did not discuss limits on actual military operations against military targets.
I am only discussing punitive, intentional destruction of family homes where there is no intention of killing or even arresting anyone. Where the only intention is Terror.
I have no problems with a missile in the workship of a suicide bomb squad builder or ambushing a commander. No problems at all with military actions against combatants.
So Dale, no matter what crimes a family of terrorists has committed, it is legitimate for them to kill young soldiers just doing their job … but if those soldiers decide to destroy their house or shoot young hooligans throwing stones (and often grenades) it is not legitimate? If, as you suggest, this is a war, then why on earth are homes not fair game if tanks are?
I really can’t understand the notion that destroying the empty homes of the families of suicide bombers is either terrorism or an illegitimate tactic of war. For years, allied bombers flew over Germany, hoping to destroy as many houses as possible, irrespective of whether there were people inside them. The only people you hear protesting such acts are National Socialist dinosaurs like David Irving.
But if the Jews dare to destroy ONLY the houses of the people who attacked them, and ONLY when they are evacuated, it is called terrorism? Please. If only the Allied bombings of Germany had been so targetted and so sparing of innocent life. If only they had been as effective as fast as this Israeli policy.
By definition, the parents who train suicide bombers do not love their children as much as they hate the Jews. But if basic maternal instinct can’t sway them, then an attack on their bank balance might – and often does. The Palestinians are losing this fight, and they deserve to. I hope to see more house-smashings. Maybe one day there will have been enough to make them see past the propaganda they have been brainwashed with for so long.
Is it or is it not proper to defend your home against destruction by a State? Yes or No.
For the most part, the families in the houses did commit crimes.
They harboured terrorists.
They raised terrorists,
I would prefer it if the Israelis didn’t feel the need to bull doze houses, but as long as they are bull dozing the houses of terrorists, I have no major moral qualms with it. They let the residents leave, so they are depriving the people of property, not life. Since the terrorists think they will be rewarded in death, the Israelis are punishing them in death the only way they can, by punishing the terrorists families.
Okay, you answer no. You say people may not defend their house against an attack by the State.
There was, incidentally, a case here in the UK a few years back in which a fellow’s house was under threat. He shot the planning department fellow in the arse. It was on camera and I saw it on TV. The bureaucrat died.
Was the man (albiet stupid) in the right defending his house against a State? Yes or No.
Philip: And btw. Yes it is justifiable for them to kill soldiers “just doing their job.” Just as it is wholly justifiable for the soldiers to kill the ones trying to kill them. So long as it is combantant versus combatant, there is no crime. You cheer for your side, the other guy cheers for his side. You may be in the Right and he may be in the Wrong, but both of your actions are reasonable in warfare.
As far as I am concerned, the only proper, redeeming, action for a terrorist would be to die and take a lot of his colleagues with him. Of course it is not proper for the family of a suicide bomber to protect their homes from just retribution. But then if they acted properly they would have done all they could to stop their offspring ever becoming suicide bombers in the first place.
Is it okay for a law-abiding citizen uninvolved in terrorism to defend his home? Sure. But they are not the issue here. We are talking about terrorists and their families.
And do you think the bombing of Dresden was an act of terrorism? That Bomber Harris was a terrorist? During the Dresden bombing, there was no pretense of targetting the homes only of combatants, nor of attacking only after the homes had been evacuated. It seems by any standard that Israel is being far more kind – perhaps overly – yet you still manage to call them terrorists. That’s just bizarre.
Byna, what you just said is completely disgusting…
”Since the terrorists think they will be rewarded in death, the Israelis are punishing them in death the only way they can, by punishing the terrorists families.”
I consider it’s completely immoral to punish the family of a terrorist… anyone who has a moral would think the same way I do…
Punishing the family for the crime of one of it’s member… It makes me think about the Bolchevik and some other communists governments. Only the terrorist is guilty, and the fact that he’s death isn’t an excuse to punish someone else.
I’m completely with Dale on this one…
Seems to me, the people whose houses are being destroyed are being subject to punishment without any sort of trial.
I also think they are wrongfully being held responsible for their relatives actions.
If your son or daughter commits a crime, should you have your house torn down? Hell no, I say.
If these people are training their sons & daughters to be terrorists, why not arrest them and put them on trial?
Nothing excuses how Palestinians deliberately target civilians. But this ain’t right, either. Things like these do excuse the Palestinians targetting of military targets (like tanks and such).
With regards to Mr. Cuthbertson, I think he’s missing the point. There’s a huge difference between bombing when you aren’t sure you’ll only hit military targets (and in fact knowing you’ll be hitting civilian houses and such), then going to a house and deliberately knocking it down.
Especially since Israel controls the area. If the Allies had occupied Germany, then bombed the hell out of it, then yes, that would be quite bad.
And yes, I have an excessively low opinion of what was done to Dresdan. That in itself is a very long side argument. I’ll not go there in this discussion thread.
Back to the houses. I presume if you believe it is okay to destroy the homes of people related to someone who is presumed to be a suicide bomber (which is a very big IF because this has been going on for far, far longer than there have been suicide bombers), then you must also be in agreement with zero tolerance laws in the USA where if someone’s teen age son has an OZ in his bedroom (just like his da did when he was a kid) then it is okay for the State to seize the house and sell it at auction? Or to make it more similar, if you daughter falls in love with a guy in a gang and ends up being part of a petrol station holdup, it would be okay for the State to come by and bulldoze your house?
From what you said earlier, I would presume your answer to that is YES, the British government could destroy your house if your kid commits a crime.
And… since your daughter was a criminal, you shouldn’t take any action to defend your home. You should act like a good little sheep and say “I love Big Brother. He is Right to taketh away mine house for my parental failures. Long Live Big Brother and The Glorious State!” [Prostrations and boot licking optional]
The problem you are all having with this is the notion of collective punishment – you are seeing it as a great ethical deviation to punish the families of individuals who have done wrong. But in matters of war and terror (as opposed to ordinary crime, to answer Dale’s last two posts), collective punishment and action is in the very nature of what occurs. This is an unavoidable necessity. Seen from this perspective, in the average war the nation of a man who kills someone on your side faces retaliation that kills the mother of someone in a neighbouring city or something. Taking this into account, it is in fact a major moral step up from ordinary warfare to target the families of people who are guilty of terrorist acts, neutralising their reward money by destroying their homes.
It’s no good complaining that to wage war and fight terror effectively you need to hurt and smash the property of members of the other side who haven’t directly done what is wrong. That is what war is. At least try to target some of the hurt you inflict in such a way as to discourage the other side from attacking you in that way in future. This appears to be working with the house-destroying policy, and this brings peace for both sides all the closer.
So you believe it would be okay if Palestinians tracked down the homes of Israeli soldiers and destroyed them?
From your statement I must presume either that is the case, or that your rules of war are “If my side does it is okay; if the other side does it, it is a crime.”
Oh, and by the way. Your logic has also just justified the use of suicide bombing as a tactic of war. Was that your intent?
Sorry, Dale. My government could take my house at any time; normally by the assertion of eminent domain, but in extremis, as during the San Francisco fire, Whole blocks of houses were dynamited to make fire breaks.
The destruction of a house is not too different from confiscating a house as retribution for illegal actions from that house.
Any idiot who throws rocks at men carrying machine guns is requesting removal from the gene pool. Any idiot who thinks shooting is an inapropriate responce to rock throwing is invited to have someone throw five pound rocks at him. A rock is a deadly weapon. A man who encourages his children to throw rocks at armed men is not a man, he is a craven coward unworthy of any reguard. A house that is used to mount an attack on a government rightly is forfeit – the bull dozer is an act of mercy, they could use artillery or aerial bombs.
Mr. Wallis, you took the words right out of my mouth.
If Mr. Amon believes that the Arabs are “justified” in ambushing soldiers who are coming to destroy their houses, fine. Of course, the Israelis are then likewise justified in not presenting the Arabs with such convenient targets. Which leaves them with fun things like rockets or artillery or tanks with which to destroy the houses. Sure, it increases the likelihood of the bomber’s family’s neighbors getting their house torn up as well, not to mention that some innocent people might die from the shrapnel, but hey, the Arabs have to protect their property, so to hell with respecting the mercy shown to them.
Gotta keep our priorities straight.
Dale, Your moral compass is in need of repair. I hope it’s still under warranty.
Do you believe it would be okay if Palestinians tracked down the homes of Israeli soldiers and destroyed them?
No. It would be okay if they tracked down and destroyed the homes of Israeli terrorists.
Oh, and by the way. Your logic has also just justified the use of suicide bombing as a tactic of war. Was that your intent?
As I said, I think suicide bombing of other terrorists is a redeeming thing to do. Suicide bombing of civilians is a monstrous evil.
I agree with O’Toole as well. You seem to think distinguishing between the terrorist and the democratic sides in this conflict is somehow shameful or hypocritical.
The distinctions aren’t that tough:
Strapping yourself up with explosives and detonating yourself in a Pizza Hut: terrorism.
Strapping a bridge with explosives and detonating it when a tank rumbles over it: guerilla warfare.
Bulldozing a clandestine bomb factory: law enforcement.
Bulldozing the home of the parents of a bad guy to put pressure on the bad guy: terrorism.
Precisely. I justify the morality of an Action independant of the Actor and their Cause. Immoral acts in support of a Just cause are still immoral. You summarize it correctly.
There are perfectly valid reasons for there to be guerilla warfare. Certain acts of guerillas are marginal for warfare designed wholly around the concept of Ruler and State. But there must still be standards of behavior even for irregular warfare by guerilla fighters. Unless it is accepted that guerilla fighters are valid fighters, you enter into an “anything goes” mentality. If a guerilla fighter attacks my tank, he is in an honourable warrior; if he attacks my family he is a moral leper. The street goes both ways.
A person is a terrorist because of which acts they carry out. This is independant of which side they are on.
Mr Wallis: Yes, I am aware that States can steal property from any of their “free citizens” at the drop of a porkbarrel. That does not make it right. Theft is theft. But again, that is a very long side argument. Perhaps Perry would like to blog and take up issues of private property rights in a civil society.
We’re discussing rather uncivil society at the moment. 😉
Since some people may not have realized I’m using Israel-Palestine as an example case in wider issues, I’ll create an imaginary one.
Dale,
I’m an Israeli, but I feel the need to say some things in your defense:
Tearing down houses isn’t a nice thing to do. Granted.
Still people are murdered on a regular basis. Doing nothing to defend them isn’t right. Terrorists and their leaders are hunted down and taken out as much as possible, still the terror continues. (By the way – many of the big leaders of terror, starting with the biggest one – Arafat have got international immunity – Israel is prevented by the Bush administration from touching them).
Tearing down houses was not done in the first year and a half of this new stage of the conflict (which started Oct 2000). But terrorim continues, and we have no choice. Tearing down houses reduces the number of attacks a little. Now – say we refrained from tearing down houses, and as a direct consequence there would be 50 more innocent civilians killed in the next 6 months – is that acceptable? Can you knowingly refrain from preventing the murder of some more civilians?
Is the demolition of a house too big a price to pay for saving some people from death ?
Jacob, what you seem to be saying is that tearing down houses is a little bit wrong and a little bit effective.
That doesn’t really seem good enough, does it?
I think the thing I am having trouble with is the strict equation of Israeli acts vs. Palestinians and Palestinian acts vs. Israelis. They’re not equivalent. Israel does not wish to exterminate the Palestinians. The Palestinians do wish to exterminate the Jews. Holding Israel to a moral code that the Palestinian terrorists do not adhere to is a recipe for another holocaust. The fact that Israel has thus far resisted the temptation to do something truly spectacular should be cause for commendation.
The Israelis have shown quite heroic levels of restraint. I’m with Peter Cuthbertson on this one. If you have harboured terrorists then you are a criminal, and sanctions should apply to you. Aiding the forces of an irregular or guerilla force renders you liable to summary execution under the Geneva convention. Do I believe that Israelis are intrinsically moraly superior to the Palstinians? No, of course not. But they have thus far behaved in a morally superior fashion. This is the terrible dilemma that faces a democracy when it fights fascism. How does one prevail without becoming the enemy? The British Army faced this problem in Northern Ireland, and Israel faces it in Palestine.
I’m not so rigidly anti-State as to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And it’s an interesting thought as to what an Israeli population untrammeled by the rule of State-administered law would do to the Palestinians. Massacre them, I would expect.
“Holding Israel to a moral code that the Palestinian terrorists do not adhere to is a recipe for another holocaust.”
Ow! That’s just…wrong.
How is the immoral behavior of the Palestinians going to bring about another holocaust? And how is descending to their level going to stop it?
I think people are missing the obvious here:
All Israeli actions are right and proper because they are STRONG. All Palestinian resistance is immoral and pathetic because they are weak.
The morality of the powerless is irrelevant. For a side’s moral codes to mean anything, that side must first seize power.
The Israelis could kill every last Arab, and it would be moral, because they have the power and the backing of those with even more power. We would see it on TV and in the papers as a glorious victory for democracy and freedom.
“But might doesn’t make right!” Oh really. Those of you in the U.S. should ask what happened to the original owners of the land you live on. When your ancestors killed the occupants and seized their land, was that justified? Of course it was — your ancestors were better armed.
“Jacob, what you seem to be saying is that tearing down houses is a little bit wrong and a little bit effective.”
Yes.
Tearing down houses is a little bit (maybe a great bit) wrong, and a little bit right, since the occupants of those houses are a little guilty – they failed to prevent suicide murders when they could, either by restraining their son or by turning him in (thus saving also his life, by the way, some are doing this).
Tearing down houses is a little bit effective – it reduces the bombings, and a little ineffective – it does not prevent all bombings.
Things in life aren’t allways clear cut and either all good or all bad. Mostly they are alittle good and a little bad. We hate such state of affairs – we like them clear cut – but they aren’t allways so.
I say that we must – absolutely must – do anything to prevent as much as possible these murders. War is ugly, and though one tries to avoid some extreme ugliness, it cannot be completely sanitized, there are many murky situations.
As ugliness of war goes – tearing down empty homes isn’t so high on the scale of badness. And it has a strong argument going for it: it helps reduce murders, it saves lives.
T. J. Madison:
You said it yoursef:
“The Israelis could kill every last Arab……”
They don’t do it. Why ? Some moral restraint maybe ?
“All Israeli actions are right and proper because they are STRONG.”
Woe to them if they weren’t strong, right or wrong notwithstanding.
Being strong is surely important, essential for one’s surviving. Are morals – right or wrong – irrelevant ? It seems – in relations between nations (as contrasted to relations between individuals) morals are much less decisive (and less well defined) – this is an empirical observed fact and not a statement of desired principles.
I say that we must – absolutely must – do anything to prevent as much as possible these murders.
But you don’t do “anything”.
You don’t, for example, kidnap relatives of the bombers and hold them hostage as surety. For that matter, you don’t wipe the Palestinians off the face of the earth – the simplest, most effective and wickedest solution.
What I’m getting at is that you’re willing to be a little bit wrong to be a little bit effective, but you won’t countenance doing moderate wrong for moderate effectiveness or grievous wrong for absolute effectiveness.
The difference is a little mysterious to outsiders. We tend to think you’d be better off – from a PR perspective, which is where so much of this particular conflict is being fought – doing less wrong and foregoing the very small good that bulldozing houses might be doing you.
Dale Amon wrote:
>>By all means fire a missile into the car or the house of a known leader. I had no problem with the ambush of one of them. That is a military act.<< Yes, and the Israelis prefer doing it this way, given the opportunity, which is why the terrorists try not to give them the opportunity. What then? The terrorists are murdering Israelis and hiding among civilians. The Israelis are justified in defending themselves. To say that they can only use clean attacks on the terrorists themselves, which are rarely possible, is to say that more innocent Israelis should die so that terrorists' families don't have their property destroyed. Surely a lesser wrong is preferable to a greater one.
S Weasel:
You are right. We don’t do “anything”. That is why the terror doesn’t stop.
A very delicate balance is being sought between what we do and what we don’t do, and what risks (of loss of life) are worth taking in order to avoid doing too ugly things.
For example – in Jenin IDF refrained from buldozing houses from which soldiers were shot at, and as a consequence took a hit of 12 soldiers killed, after which some houses were destroyed and no more losses sustained.
No one can say wether the current balance is exactely right, but I think it is reasonable. However – if the war continues and terror escalates, preventive measures may escalate too.
That is the nature of war.
One should not judge just one aspect – destroying houses – without reference to the whole context of this war.
One of the critical points that has been mentioned only in passing is that terrorists are war criminals.
Terrorists are illegal combatants because they do not differentiate themselves from the general populace. This is a not insignificant point of international law, because if you fail to wear a uniform, your opponents don’t know who to target, and are justified in targeting and killing everyone in your general vicinity. The responsibility for the collateral deaths is yours, because you failed to wear a uniform and, for lack of a better term, fight fair.
All the Palestinian fighters are illegal combatants who are committing war crimes. Anyone who aids and abets them is aiding and abetting the commitment of war crimes. The Israelis have chosen house destruction as the punishment for aiding and abetting the commitment of war crimes; on the whole, this is quite a mild punishment compared to what is traditionally doled out, and compared to what the Israelis are allowed to do under international law and convention to those who aid and abet war crimes.
Really, the only issue is how much legal process should be allowed to those accused of aiding and abetting war crimes by housing known terrorists. It is at this point that the fact that this is an ongoing hot war becomes relevant – your opponents in a currently prosecuted war are entitled to no legal process. That’s what makes it a war.
The question of how effective the house destructions are is still somewhat open, but it does seem to be better than doing nothing.
The demolition of houses is a symptom of a greater problem. And this is the point that is sadly missed … as it is lost amoung all the “smoke and mirrors” which distort this debaate.
House demolition is arguably an ineffective deterrent, as it represents an attempt to crush human spirit. Attempts to do this seldom suceed. Recent WW2 history is a salient example of this.
In the mix of things… this prompts the question … does this practice, a policy of encirclement and deprivaiton of basic freedoms, actually promote an environment that promotes peace ? I think not.
The policies of the Sharon administration are promoted as ostensibly about the defence of a nation state, and it’s continued right to exist. Which I cannot question and I do support. However, from an observers perspective, the actions of the Sharon (a career military man), and formerly the architect of many of the existing settlements. I have difficulty in shaking off the suspicion that the pretext of self defence is a cover for the attempt to illegally grab more land (in breach of countless UN resolutions).
If it wasn’t a serious matter I would laugh at Israels spin doctoring and obsessive pre-disposition to suppress and censor critical comment of its actions.
But it is a serious matter, and one that will not be resolved until one party excercises its capability to take the higher moral ground.
Under the circumstances I consider the agressor, of which there are two, with the greatest might, is charged with this responsibility. But I do not see this happening under the leadership of a military man, such as sharon, who holds power due to the support of far right.
Nor do I see it happening effectively and justly with US intervention. Although the opprtunity does exist, as the reality is that Irael is arguably a welfare state of the US. With a reliance on such aid to survive. The US could wave the stick, possibly even behind closed diplomatic doors.. allowing key parties to save face…
But this is unlikely due to the strong influence of certain lobby groups in the US.
Until the opportunity to seize the higher moral ground is taken … it is unfortunately difficult to see a fair resolution.
Until this happens it will always sadden me that this situation continues. And it saddens me that there are people on both sides of this conflict who suffer as a result.
The demolition of houses is a symptom of a greater problem. And this is the point that is sadly missed … as it is lost amoung all the “smoke and mirrors” which distort this debaate.
House demolition is arguably an ineffective deterrent, as it represents an attempt to crush human spirit. Attempts to do this seldom suceed. Recent WW2 history is a salient example of this.
In the mix of things… this prompts the question … does this practice, a policy of encirclement and deprivaiton of basic freedoms, actually promote an environment that promotes peace ? I think not.
The policies of the Sharon administration are promoted as ostensibly about the defence of a nation state, and it’s continued right to exist. Which I cannot question and I do support. However, from an observers perspective, the actions of the Sharon (a career military man), and formerly the architect of many of the existing settlements. I have difficulty in shaking off the suspicion that the pretext of self defence is a cover for the attempt to illegally grab more land (in breach of countless UN resolutions).
If it wasn’t a serious matter I would laugh at Israels spin doctoring and obsessive pre-disposition to suppress and censor critical comment of its actions.
But it is a serious matter, and one that will not be resolved until one party excercises its capability to take the higher moral ground.
Under the circumstances I consider the agressor, of which there are two, with the greatest might, is charged with this responsibility. But I do not see this happening under the leadership of a military man, such as sharon, who holds power due to the support of far right.
Nor do I see it happening effectively and justly with US intervention. Although the opprtunity does exist, as the reality is that Irael is arguably a welfare state of the US. With a reliance on such aid to survive. The US could wave the stick, possibly even behind closed diplomatic doors.. allowing key parties to save face…
But this is unlikely due to the strong influence of certain lobby groups in the US.
Until the opportunity to seize the higher moral ground is taken … it is unfortunately difficult to see a fair resolution.
Until this happens it will always sadden me that this situation continues. And it saddens me that there are people on both sides of this conflict who suffer as a result.