clairobscur:
But it’s not reprisal against their family. It’s reprisal against the criminals themselves…that’s where they live, too.
If you force a criminal to pay monetary restitution to his victims (I know this isn’t restitution; I’m just using an example), do you consider it to be punishing the criminal’s family because the money would otherwise have been used for feeding/clothing/housing the family?
by cmkeller
So does that makes it okay to bring physical harm to innocent people, like children and old folks? If I’m following you right, it seems as if the logic behind these kinds of reprisals is that it is acceptable to kill or injure Palestinian bystanders just as long as a terrorist might be taken out. If this is not a correct conclusion to draw, help me out.
Apples and oranges. You might speculate that the money would otherwise be spent on the family, but you don’t know it will. Furthermore, a loss of money is not a direct blow to the family, but rather indirect, since it is possible that money can be obtained from other sources.
Compare that to having a house bulldozed while people are in it. The potential for direct harm to innocent parties is much greater. Is it even guaranteed that the homes hit actually belong to terrorists? It just seems like a real clumsy way of going after someone.
you with the face:
It’s not OK to specifically target innocents for harm, and I never said it was.
Then you’re not following me right.
All I said was that knocking down a criminal’s house is a valid act of punishment against the criminal, even though it’s true that others will suffer as a consequence. It is not an act targeted at the innocent.
Do I really need to tailor a precise analogy, or can you take it in the spirit it was meant? I’m illustrating a principle here, not pointing out an example.
The point is: if the punishment for a crime will impact the criminal and also other people as well, it is not a punishment directed at those innocent others, it is directed at the criminal, and unfortunately, it is not always possible (if you believe in chaos theory, then ultimately never possible) to impact one without affecting the others.
Fortunately, that’s not the Israeli Army’s modus operandi. The Israelis always tell the occupants to evacuate before they knock down a structure.
First you demand that I produce cites (cautioning me that one example is not enough). I give you several that were pretty easy to find. Then you say that’s not sufficient, because it’s “anecdotal” evidence.
What do you expect as proof? A Zogby poll in which X% of people who say they’re highly critical of Israel also self-identify as anti-Semites? Brother, it ain’t gonna happen.
When you see the pattern repeating over and over again, it takes a great deal of denial to claim that it’s insignificant.
“Most threads”. :rolleyes: When I’ve seen this accusation here (on rare occasions), it’s been directed at people like the ones I listed, who have amply demonstrated their bigotry. Making wistful statements about how wonderful things would be if Israel were to somehow vanish from the Earth (given the necessary bloodbath that would entail), is, apparently, what triggered a poster to invoke anti-Semitism in this thread. I invite you to provide cites that it’s been used to intimidate all critics of Israel. Good luck.
Please provide context/cites.
There’s a wonderful search function. You won’t have to rack your memory.
Yes, but how significant could this be if all you can think of is one anecdote (sorry, couldn’t resist)?
Even if Mugabe-bashing as a front for racism was well-documented on the SDMB, would this make the common linkage of extreme anti-Israel ranting and anti-Semitism somehow acceptable?
I guess there’s no hope of getting you to stop using this strawman argument. “Most people formulating some argument against Israel” don’t get called anti-Semites. It takes a special kind of nuttiness to acquire that label.
To follow up on your earlier response about what Arab neighbors should take in Palestinian refugees - my point was that it is extremely hypocritical for those nations to harp on the plight of the refugees when they consistently refuse them sanctuary (and citizenship, if they choose).
Since you’re arguing that other Arab/Muslim states don’t have that much in common with the Palestinians - what about the United States, which overcomes much greater cultural and religious differences regarding the great numbers of refugees it takes in?
by cmkeller
If this is true, then I honestly (not being facetious here) don’t understand the logic behind this. They tell the occupants (presumably the criminal, as well?) to evacuate, and then bulldoze the property? It seems that if they are able to locate the criminal (or suspected criminal…but semantics shemantics), then they should be able to arrest the individual and lock them up, thus punishing them by putting them in jail. If the criminal is no where to be found (which is probably much more likely than him/her sitting on the couch waiting for the tanks to come), what’s the point of ruining the property of people who possibly had nothing to do with the criminal’s actions? Just to “get back” at someone who may not really give a damn about their aunt’s or cousin’s stuff?
If this punishment is mainly intended to be a detering force against more acts of terrorism, I don’t understand that, either. Not when you are dealing with people who have a fondness for suicide bombing. But I’ll gladly concede that I’m not an expert in military tactics in the Middle East, and for that reason, I am open to attempts to enlighten me.
considering we’re talking about the guys who plant bombs in buses, etc… it’s hardly so, since they’re dead.
And anyway, assuming he survives, it’s necessarily a punishment against everybody living in the house. Under our legal systems one isn’t punished for one’s relatives crimes.
First, restitutions aren’t the same thing at all than reprisal, but anyway :
That would be the same situation if they struck at the criminal property or estate (still refering to suicide bombings), but in this case the house destroyed isn’t necessarily the criminal’s property (actually, it’s probably rarely his property, since they’re are usually young, but rather his parent’s or grandparent’s house).
I precisely refered to evidences that a significant part of people criticizing Israel were antisemitic. I might have poorly expressed myself by stating that giving one example wouldn’t be enough so you could have genuineley believed that I was asking for several, but examples of antisemitic people making anti-Israeli statements weren’t what I was after. I do not doubt that a lot of antisemites will criticize Israel, but what we’re taliking about is the contrary : is there a large enough part of the people criticizing Israel who are actually motivated by antisemitism to justify casting suspicions on the motivations of anybody who is making such criticisms?
That’s exactly what I think : that it’s unprovable. So, why should I believe what is nothing more than an unbacked “gut feeling”?
OK. I’m way too lazy to reread the former threads about Israel in search for mentions that accusations against Israel are commonly motivated by antisemitism, and establish the %age of them containing such a statement, so I’ve no other choice than concede this point. Not that I’m convinced, but lacking evidences, I could remember specifically only the threads where it happened and be under a false impression.
I don’t think it should specifically be the responsability of neighboring countries to take in the refugees (when people use this argument, it’s generally justified by both being arabs). It should be as much the responsability of any other country. And one could note that there are refugees camps in countries like Lebanon, so they’re already taking more than their fair share of the burden.
Do western countries feel like they’re under the obligation of granting citizenship to any refugee coming from a country they criticize the policies of? I doens’t seems to me it works that way. How many Afghan refugees were allowed in western countries when said countries were harshly attacking the Russian occupation or the Taliban regime, for instance? So, why should it be different for arab countries and palestinian refugees?
Finally, I suppose you now very well that these countries state that letting them in would be validating Israel stance concerning the refugees (no right of return, etc…) , which is precisely what they oppose. For instance, what was more legitimate in the case of Kosovo? Having the Kosovars coming back to the place they were expelled from, or letting Serbia get away with the ethnic cleansing and granting the refugees cizenship in some other place? Given these countries hold Israel as being responsible for the refugees issue at the first place, why should they think or act differently and sort of “help” Israel getting rid of the issue, and getting away with its assumed responsabilies at their own expense? Their stance seems perfectly consistent to me.
I don’t say that they don’t have that much in common. I say that “having something in common” doesn’t usually result in other countries feeling obligated to welcome and grant citizenship to refugees. Making the argument that arab countries should is asking them to have higher standarts than our own countries.
And given the size and wealth of this country, I’m not particularily impressed by the number of refugees accepted in the USA (nor in most western countries. Germany for instance used to let in an unusually high number of refugees and asylum seekers, but I’m not convinced it’s still true) . Most refugees worldwide end up living in camps in neighboring countries, generally poor ones which don’t really need such a burden. I don’t think western countries, the USA included, your opinion nonwithstanding, particularily deserve praises for their handling of the refugee issues. Their governments speak a lot, but don’t do much, as you’re accusing arab governments of doing.
Want figures? The USA resttle 70 000 refugees/ year on its territory. That’s roughly 0.025% of the US population. There are 360 000 Palestianian refugees in Lebanon, for a population of roughly 4 millions. If Lebanon resettled these refuges at the same rate the US does, hence would aply the so laudable US standarts, it would allow in 1000 refugees/ year, hence it would take 360 years to resettle them all. And that without even considering the fact that Lebanon is much poorer. So, are you telling me that you’re not asking Lebanon to do way more than the US, that you’re apparently so proud of, is doing?
When the US will allow 25 millions refugees (the proportionnal equivalent of the refugees in Lebanon) to resettle within its boundaries, then you’ll have a point.
but they are–at least in spirit, if not the flesh. Ariel Sharon has sent his South African Golems, and a few of the best “interrogators”, who have learned the way of the wily habib , under duress from those bleeding heart israeli supremes.
re:economic stranglehold:you can’t drink the water (no, it’s ok to drink it, there just isn’t any.)
It is an abominable practice that a desperate and debauched leadership in Israel has leapt to in the vain hope of reaching beyond the grave, as it were, and inflicting punishment vicariously upon the shahidi.
Alan Dershowitz should rot in hell for lending his moral authority to a practice that would suit the SS quite well. Collective punishment is stupid. It only works to create new martyrs.
Viz, "sama aint even dead yet, and theyve already created another 25 million dolar man in Zarqawi.
07 July 2004
Israeli interrogators in Iraq - An exclusive reporthttp://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr040707_1_n.shtml
preempting the inevitable whine for citations…
What you’ve gotten is concrete evidence backing up the statement that numerous of the most virulent and one-sided Israel-haters are also bigots. Ignore this as you please, but it’s out there for everyone to see.
You keep trying to rephrase the debate as relating to claims that all critics of Israel (a group that at times includes me) are subject to labeling as anti-Semites, but these attempts at martyrdom are transparently and patently false.
The countries raising the most ruckus about treatment of the Palestinians, who work to keep them in refugee camps rather than welcoming them into society, and who continue to encourage strife in the region that perpetuates the situation, have a prime responsibility.
Note also that the U.S. in recent years has taken in close to 100,000 refugees from Iraq and Iran alone. And none of them are isolated in camps, to my knowledge.
The U.S. has taken in plenty of Cuban refugees, who are eligible like any other people for citizenship. In just the last decade there have been 143,000 Bosnian refugees admitted (these are State Dept. figures, by the way).
Which amounts to penning them up in camps for political purposes.
Consistently cruel.
I gave my figures. Yours don’t contradict them. To do what you expect Lebanon to do, proportionnally, would mean for the US to resettle 25 millions people, 350 times more people than it does. It’s difficult to argue that you aren’t demanding to a little country which is barely recovering from a civil war to make an effort 350 times more important than the effort the wealthiest country in the world is making. Come back when these 25 milions refugees will be let in the US, and not in camps.
And if it is that cruel to keep these refugees in camps, doesn’t it apply too to Israel?
And by the way, most refugees in the world live in camps. Most countries where these refugees end up (which rarely are western countries, once again) couldn’t afford a decent housing for their native population, let alone for refugees.
At the risk of being cliched, when come back, bring coherence.
you with the face (and similar question raised by clairobscur):
It denies him a future base of operations, and easily disposes of any hidden caches of weapons, explosives, propoganda literature, or whatever are the implements of the craft that this specific one uses. It flushes out any other criminals that he might be hiding from justice. It exposes any hidden tunnels that might have been used for transport of weapons. In addition, snipers often made use of fellow criminals’ structures; this denies them the use of that hiding/firing place.
And I’m sure I have not yet exhausted all the possible benefits that can come out of destroying the house of a convicted criminal.
You’re the one singling out Lebanon. I said nothing about demanding that all the refugees be given a decent place to live in that country. There are numerous Arab neighbors, some with considerable oil wealth, that could take an active role in resettling Palestinian refugees.
But that’s about as likely to happen as those countries allowing all the Jewish refugees they booted out to return.
That’s a logical example, since many palestinians are living in this country. I needed a comparison, since you gave the USA as an example of what should be done. You also stated that it was cruel to keep them in camps rather than offering them a proper asylium, or citizenship, etc…That comment could only apply to a country where there are actually refugees camps, like Lebanon.
They could. But so could any other affluent countries. Even lumping together all the oil-monarchies you’d get a much lower population and GNP than the USA, so how many Palestianians have been let in the US, recently, on the basis that letting them live in camps in cruel, or have been granted political asylium? (there has certainly been a number of "regular"Palestianian immigrants, not refugees, in the US, but there are similarily Palestinians living and working in many arab countries.
Besides, I mentionned why neighboring arab countries were opposed on the principle to allow Palestianians, so, allowing Israel to get rid of the issue and validating a “fait-accompli”, the whole thing at their expense. Since the US has no such issue, at the contrary, why wouldn’t it let in these refugees who are cruely left to rot in camps (left by arab countries…apparently camps in territories controlled by Israel don’t count and it’s only cruel when the camp is in an arab country)?
If it is a bad thing not to allow the Jews to come back to their country of origin(which I doubt they would want, anyway, and nor would I) , I assume it’s also a bad thing to deny Palestinians the right of return?
I supposed they would be gratified to learn of your desires in the matter (?).
I’m not sure there’d be a place to return, since Palestinian Authority maps don’t even include Israel.
And having all Palestinians return would effectively destroy Israel as a state, which would not be the case for Palestinians allowed to emigrate to other nations. Of course, that is the goal for many promoting the “right of return”.
Ok. What is the percentage of jews from arab countries who have emigrated to Israel and are asking the right to return?
Which was certainly very inconvenient when they were busy drawing the frontiers during the negociations which have taken place in the past…
Yes. I get it. What is unnacceptable coming from an arab state (not allowing someone to get back, letting the palestinians live in refugee camps), is always a totally different problem and perfectly justified when done by Israel.
By the way, how would the right of return in the occupied territories, rather than in Israel proper, result in the the destruction of Israel? If it wouldn’t, why is it an issue too?
If Israel don’t want them in because it would mean in the long run the end of it as a Jewish state, they’ve no responsability altogether regarding the Palestinians, nor because they’re living in camps in a territory Israel controls, nor because they originally lived in what is Israel , according to you? That’s someone else’s duty to take care of the problem?
“We can’t allow you in back in the place you were born, since it would destroy our state as we want it, hence it’s probably the duty of some other country to find you a place to live in, meanwhile, stay in this camp, anyway it’s nowhere as cruel as if the camp was on the other side of the boundary, is it?”
Apart the last one (denies other criminals, etc…) wouldn’t all these objectives be achieved simply by searching the house, rather than bulldozing it?
Is it the regular procedure to buldozze a house in order to more conveniently search for evidences of crimes in many countries?
Seems to me it would make rather more difficult to find said evidences. And of course the “tunnel” issue can only be a concern in some extremely limited areas of the occupied teritories, while houses are bulldozed everywhere.
And concerning the last one, so it’s ok to bulldoze a family’s house because some criminal could use it in the future? (of course, they couldn’t use it to fire upon anybody if there wasn’t anybody to fire upon around the house at the first place, either, but apparently, withdrawal isn’t an option, though “preventive bulldozing” is).
Don’t buy that. That’s reprisal intended to deter, plain and simple.
clairobscur:
The first one I mentioned would not be. As for the others, it’s more than a matter of convenience, it’s also a matter of danger…booby traps on the weapons caches, hiding criminals shooting rather than allowing selves to be caught…Getting rid of them from inside a bulldozer (and in the case of hidden criminals, at the threat of a bulldozer…if they choose to stay hidden rather than obey an evacuation order, it’s on their own head) is much safer.
This isn’t an evidence search. This is a safety measure. The army already has whatever evidence of guilt it needs before bulldozing a house.
I never said that every one of those reasons apply to every one of the bulldozings. I was merely offering valid examples of good reasons for destroying a criminal’s house rather than merely jailing him.
Only if members of that family were in organized active cooperation with fellow criminals likely to do so.
Withdrawal is not an option unless there’s some mechanism for ensuring peace. Since Oslo, the hope in Israel was that such a mechanism would be a responsible Palestinian government obeying and enforcing a peace treaty. After the Al-Aqsa Intifada shot that hope to hell, Sharon came up with a new mechanism: the wall that everyone outside Israel so deplores. Most likely when it’s finished, the Israelis will withdraw.
Chaim Mattis Keller