Face-to-face with Tulkarm executioners

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3238807.stm




By Orla Guerin
BBC correspondent in Tulkarm


In the Middle East, there is concern about the growing numbers of Palestinians being hunted down and killed - not by the Israeli army but by their own friends and neighbours.

Palestinian human rights workers say more than 70 suspected collaborators have died in vigilante killings over the past three years.

edited by poster

What do many other (western) countries do with traitors or spies that spy against their own country?

the accused have the right and ability to defend themselves. This is vigilante justice. There is no country of Palestine, but I presume (I may be wrong) the PA has "some" guidelines?

<spelling>

..is meted out by both sides in this conflict. Extra-judicial executions ring a bell? No? Well here's a list:

http://www.btselem.org/English/Statistics/Fatalities_Lists/Extra_Judicial_eng.asp

Good point Scurrilous!

please give me the names of Israelis who hunted down fellow Israelis, murdered them and did not go to trial for their crimes?

How does this make the struggle against the occupation in Palestine different from the struggle against Apartheid in South Africa, for independence in Ireland or against the Nazi occupation in France?

Examples of vigilante justice can be cited in each of these movements. Indeed, Winnie Mandela was later tried for her alleged part in the killing of some youths related to the resistance to Apartheid. These killings, whether in any way justified by the circumstances or not, were almost necessarily extra-judicial.

That doesn't excuse these acts. A fair and open trial by a jury is certainly preferable to rough justice. However, resistance movements aren't governments as much as they are military organizations. They require a high degree of discipline. As the saying went during World War II, Loose lips sink ships.

The fact that Palestinian nationalists practice a form of rough justice is not unique among movements of this nature.

try saying this bluesoul....

"you know...that kind of justice is pathetically prevalent amoung
the palestinian terrorist murderers and their supporters and its barbaric by todays standards. This is not what civilized human beings do to one another."

does that work for you, bluesoul??

Never again.

Never again.

It is barbaric. I didn't deny that. But in many countries traitors would end the same (death penalty etc) Even in the so democratic USA getting the death penalty is no more civilized or humane...

Btw, is the death penalty civilized? Thank you

my heart says yes but my head says no.

Well my heart and head says no. Singling out someone saying he commits barbaric acts while many others around the world practice them just as much only packed into "democratic" cellophane is hypocrisy. And what are extra-judicial assassins that Israel practices other then the same thing? Along with killing other innocent bystanders? Care to answer that as well? You see it's a two way street. Hardly anyone is without sins...

for me. I am squarely against the death sentence. I am also squarely against vigilanty justice. In a civilized society, there is no room for this.

I wish it did. If Palestine were a bona fide state with a strong, stable government instead of occupied territory with a resistance movement and this were happening, we could join in screaming bloody murder. We could denounce the leaders of Palestine the same way we denounce Mugabe in Zimbabwe or, until recently, Saddam in Iraq.

However, that isn't the case. For the rest of the argument, you are referred to post number 11, above.

But Mohammed's family claim that he was tortured into making that confession in the 21 days that he was held.

<snip>

"They melted plastic and dropped it onto his body to burn him. Mohammed was in the al-Aqsa brigades with these other guys. Then he got promoted and they got jealous - that's why they killed him," she says.

the growing numbers of Palestinians being hunted down and
killed - not by the Israeli army but by their own friends and
neighbours

If it's OK for Israelis to hunt down and kill Palestinians,
surely it is OK for Palestinians to hunt down and kill Palestinians.
Would it be better it they called it "liquidation"?

Let's condemn both or neither.

That said, I condemn this, I think all killing without due process
is wrong.

Like extra-judicial assasinations of Palestinians by the IDF where scores of innocents people have died....

" "They melted plastic and dropped it onto his body to burn him. Mohammed was in the al-Aqsa brigades with these other guys. Then he got promoted and they got jealous - that's why they killed him," she says. "

It is never possible to know the motive, whether there is actual collaboration, or merely a settling of grudge by someone in position to do so.

In most cases where the Israeli armed forces attempt killing a member of Hamas, et al, there is little doubt the target actually was a member, as the organization he belonged to generally confirms it in course of clamoring for vengeance.

I have no doubt these people are unpleasant. It's an
unpleasant business all around. Whether in this case they were
motivated by petty or patriotic motives matters little. No doubt
you may find people that will tell you either is correct. One
can in any case be sure that the perps will tell you of their
high-minded motives.

All societies habitually prune themselves of those they find
unacceptable. One advocates the rule of law precisely because,
done rightly, it offers protection from this sort of arbitrariness.

So the correct answer it to institute and enforce fairly a fair rule
of law. Then one has a framework in which to judge deeds. At present
there is only a growing chaos and a great deal of ad hoc use
of force.

I find tedious the tendency of each side in this quarrel
to tell the list of atrocities committed by the other like
a set of worry beads. It has many pernicious effects, which I
am sure you realize as well as I. I do not mean by this that
the truth should not be known, when possible, but rather that one
should avoid the associated wallowing in hate and anger. It merely
makes you stupid. Pointing out the corruption of one's enemies does
not make you pure.

To the extent that anyone may claim moral superiority over others,
it is not a state of being but a fragile achievement that must be
practiced and defended every day. Every immoral act diminishes it.
Every moral act of initiative or restraint defends it. If you stoop
to their methods, you become like them, and henceforth you are like
them. In a word, you are what you do.

In the meantime, as you point out, it is a war, and as such it has
little to do with morality or ethics, it is a test of force and will,
not a tea party.

I am thinking of the scene in Butch Cassiday and the Sundance Kid
where Butch is about the take over the gang. He says to the current
leader as the fight is about to start: "Wait, wait, what are the
rules?" The leader responds: "Rules? What rules? No rules!", and
on the last word Butch kicks him in the nuts.

Well, I suppose this is my daily rant.
Best Regards.

Your comments on the concept of moral superiority are particularly valuable. That cannot be a given attribute, to be brandished securely as a talisman. To my view, once a matter has descended to war, the very concept is beyond consideration. It is often the case that strategic benefit may be derived from actions that can be seen as moral, but since the motive is pragmatic acquisition of advantage, this cannot be described as moral behavior, since one of the diagnostics of that is that the motivation be to do what is right, whether it brings benefit or not. Treating prisoners decently, for example, on the sound ground that doing so will make surrender more thinkable by a foe at a disadvantage, is a very different thing than acting on the moral imperative to treat others decently.

And yet how often is it not the case that
that which is decent is also that which is wise.