Israel Finally Concedes Knocking Down Homes Of Terrorists' Families Only Encourages Terrorism (link)
Since the beginning of the latest Intifada, Israel has practiced a controversial policy which is considered a war crime under The Geneva Convention's prohibition against collective punishment. Under this policy, the homes of the families of suicide bombers are destroyed, leaving family members destitute with no place to live. Putting oneself in the shoes of someone whose sibling has just committed a suicide bombing, it's hard to see how this would discourage further terrorism: If you're deprived of all means of livelihood by Israel, you're that much more likely to strike back at Israel. You'd think this would be intuitive, but Israel has only conceded this now, after the military conducted an internal study of the policy. This is a good sign that the peaceniks are beginning to have some sway over the government's military strategies. It's possible that advocates of the policy have known of it's detrimental effects all along, but had a political interest in keeping the conflict going, just like they accuse Arafat of having done.
On a related note, a lot of pro-Israelis tend to accuse others of anti-semitism on the grounds that they condemn Israel for alleged crimes, but are less willing to condemn many Arab countries that are guilty of similar crimes. However, I don't see many examples of collective punishment like this in the Arab world. On this particular issue of collective punishment, it seems that Israel's stance is unique in its abhorrence.
Update: I should also mention that this New York Times article is a bit dishonest, in that it focuses solely on the issue of home demolitions that come in retaliation to terrorist, pointing out that this policy was ended during the 90's peace accords. While demolitions in retaliation for terrorism did end in 93, demolitions for no reason at all actually increased. Amnesty International has a number of case studies exposing these crimes. By pretending that demolitions in retaliation to terrorism are the only types of demolitions that take place, the New York Times is diverting attention from Israel's most egregious crimes.
Since the beginning of the latest Intifada, Israel has practiced a controversial policy which is considered a war crime under The Geneva Convention's prohibition against collective punishment. Under this policy, the homes of the families of suicide bombers are destroyed, leaving family members destitute with no place to live. Putting oneself in the shoes of someone whose sibling has just committed a suicide bombing, it's hard to see how this would discourage further terrorism: If you're deprived of all means of livelihood by Israel, you're that much more likely to strike back at Israel. You'd think this would be intuitive, but Israel has only conceded this now, after the military conducted an internal study of the policy. This is a good sign that the peaceniks are beginning to have some sway over the government's military strategies. It's possible that advocates of the policy have known of it's detrimental effects all along, but had a political interest in keeping the conflict going, just like they accuse Arafat of having done.
On a related note, a lot of pro-Israelis tend to accuse others of anti-semitism on the grounds that they condemn Israel for alleged crimes, but are less willing to condemn many Arab countries that are guilty of similar crimes. However, I don't see many examples of collective punishment like this in the Arab world. On this particular issue of collective punishment, it seems that Israel's stance is unique in its abhorrence.
Update: I should also mention that this New York Times article is a bit dishonest, in that it focuses solely on the issue of home demolitions that come in retaliation to terrorist, pointing out that this policy was ended during the 90's peace accords. While demolitions in retaliation for terrorism did end in 93, demolitions for no reason at all actually increased. Amnesty International has a number of case studies exposing these crimes. By pretending that demolitions in retaliation to terrorism are the only types of demolitions that take place, the New York Times is diverting attention from Israel's most egregious crimes.
posted by Justin at 7:54 PM
0 comments
