IDF to review its policy on terrorists' house demolitions

Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon recently appointed a committee to reevaluate the Israel Defense Forces policy of house demolition in the territories. The committee is also looking into the destruction of houses in Khan Yunis and Rafah that was carried out without proper authorization.

Committee chairman, Major General Udi Shani, head of the General Staff telecommunications branch, recently visited the West Bank and Gaza and spoke with officers about house demolitions in their areas of command.

The committee will examine house demolition in terms of its efficacy as punishment of terrorists' families, especially of suicide bombers in the West Bank, as well as for tactical purposes - destroying buildings from which rockets can be fired at settlements, mainly in the Gaza Strip.

Since the cabinet authorized renewed house demolitions in the summer of 2002 and until last summer, the Israel Defense Forces destroyed 270 houses, mostly in the West Bank, according to army statistics.

According to the United Nations figures, the IDF has destroyed 1,500 houses as of June 2004.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/521756.html

Very interesting...

Thanks!

L-

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I know it's impossible to punish suicide bombers, but the sins of the bombers' shouldn't be put on his or her family.

it is illegal.

In the Middle East, it is a recruiting tool.

But the mention of a 'committee' doesn't sound too encouraging. Too bad this practice has already been picked up by US military in Iraq.

Pardon me if I hold my applause for now.

its not about following intl law....hate to break it to you...its about what works and what doesnt work, short and long term

But, bullshit.

Israel whines loudly about being picked on by the UN, but their problems with the UN are of their own creation.

Collective reprisals against citizens of occupied territories by the occupying power are a major violation of the Geneva Convention.

If they don't want to be "picked on" maybe they should, I dunno, follow the rules.

Their decision to discuss whether to actually follow the rules or not doesn't merit any kudos from me.

Should I congratulate a thief who decides he'll think about not stealing anymore?

Israel has learned that playing by the rules won't get it any support either; at best, the rest of the world won't condemn any side. Look, for example, at the international community's actions (or lack thereof) before the start of the Six Days War, despite the fact that Israel had both international law and previous guarantees to intervene in case of trouble on its side. For an example closer to home, a recent thread condemned Israel for treating Palestinians under a different system of law than Israelis - well, that is a direct consequence of the requirements of international law.

Intl Court of INJustice begs to differ, eyl. LOL

not condemning that construction.

Justice does not mean practicing injustice and that's why the wall is just along the green line but not beyond it. Of course, it is unjust to build the wall west of the green line where it destroys the property of civilians without compensating them for the damages.

If we just go on what works and what doesn't work and leave moral qualms and international law out of it, I can think of quite a few times in the last century when things were carried out that worked, but were totally appalling to most people. Also there are folk that will argue till they're blue in the face that everything Israel does works, and people who'd argue that everything the Palestinian leadership does works. I think it being about what works and what doesn't work is obviously the way to go, but ONLY if it's done within the bounds of international law. After all, if Israel is somehow exempt from international law, then why should Israel demand that the Palestinians abide by international law?

Violet...

a can of worms...yes it is since there is lack of non political courts, agreed upon values or enforcment "officials" to ensure its application.Though i applaud the idea and principle behind it, its actually acceptance and its interpertation is up to the individual societies-rendering it actually no more than a set of principles to follow. Those principles are usually in line with western values....until the riots/shooting begins:.

a quick look at the world shows that when it comes down to it, when its time to test the "law"...it usually fails.

we can look at the french forces reaction to a single riot in the ivory cost (they opened fire from helicopters!)

Russia and chechniya..etc you know the list as well as I (BTW china i read in the intl tribune, has something thousands of protests yearly-and we know how china reacts).

The point is, the following intl law, which in principle is based on western values is followed when its convienent and not when it doesnt fit (the restraining factor are the societies own western values). In the murky areas...well each to his own.

so whether or not israel follows intl law is meerly a coincidence, when the values conincide great, when they dont, they dont (as in the french reaction...)

and as noted above, having a zillion condemnations against us, as well as empty promises, doesnt really lend it self to us respecting the impartiality of the UN


a note about the palestenians and intl law: I cant recall any israeli official (or israeli) seriously mentioning intl law to the palestenains, this conflict is so deep in the murky world of "self defense" that if left up to an interplanetary court, the case would go on for decades..and then it would end up in hung jury and endless appeals.

Everyone likes some parts of the law and dislikes other parts of it. Those with a good argument can change the rules that they don't like. Yet, when these rules are violated, it's best when the violators are punished because if everyone ignores the law, then innocent people will suffer.

Your logic is untenable,and frankly rather sick.

well you tell me which country follows "intl" law when it contradicts their definition of self defense?

England?...didnt they assassinate some IRA guy in Gilbralter..not to mention many in N. Ireland.
France?- Ivory Coast, Algeria
US?....

the list goes on, Sweden wouldnt be included, but it appears that Denmark might be getting near that line with its reaction to the racial murders there.....


i'm just pointing out the way it seems to actually work.

Your use of the holocaust doesnt apply as genocide is not considered a value that is accepted in western democracies.

You can try to frame it that way all you wish.I dont buy it.A house is no danger to anyone.If there are still terrorists in it arrest them.If not the house is harmless.It's revenge,plain and simple,and only futhers the hate.

Why not go ahead and demolish every house? Can't get any safer than that.

two basic kinds, those that provide cover for palestenian shooters and those that are where the shooters/bombers live.

the palestenians know that if they shoot from building x, it will soon be torn down. They've know that for many many years. Its not revenge, it protects the IDF troops. If there is no cover nearby, then they shoot from farther away, which is very inaccurate. Hence the policy. Not much too it, from a military point of view, it works.

tearing down the houses of the bomber/shooter. Collective punishment. Given the arab society of multiple generations living in the same house, its supposed to serve as a deterrent, meaning if the palestenain knows his family wont have a house, maybe he wont "do the deed".

I know it works in some cases, as palesteniains have admitted that, and obviously it doesnt work in others...What the balance is of would be terrorists vs newly made ones, i really dont know...perhaps thats why the IDF is rethinking the policy.

at any rate, you appear not to understand the reasoning.

One does not punish the innocent simply because they believe in a different religion. There are some things in this world that one simply does not do and this is one of them.

Unfortunately, I'm pessimistic. The current Israeli government seems to enjoy the practice of collective punishment while loving international criticism.

While I agree with Israel that the police must fight crime, I also believe that justice should be practiced and enforced, protecting the innocent from being harmed.

This is one.

side brings up the sins of your side?

That's how it goes, right?

So, how about the arabs stop blowing up children at parties?

I also wish that individuals would not practice crime. The world would be a very nice place to live in if individuals did not practice crime. Yet, since individuals practice crime, we have to pay taxes to hire police. It's really sad when the police who are hired to protect us punish us because someone else practiced a crime.

Don't punish the innocent folks simply because some people are criminals. Rather, give the innocent folks citizenship and treat them equally so that they won't be encouraged to violate laws which harm them.