Deport bombers of families?

[Richard III]

I think the poll speaks for itself...

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Deport bombers of families?

I see you were careful to do a good job of this poll

 

[Hitro]

Well I still haven't found any sources for it but in general:

It's a terrible idea. Taking a family responsible for the actions of one of its members is a thing I hoped to be left behind in the West (where I count Israel in) 60 years ago. Some obviously didn't do so.
I haven't found a translation for the German word 'Sippenhaft' but that's what it is. And everybody who knows just a bit about the German language will be able to set it in the right context.

Again, I don't know who proposed that and how serious it is, but it is a terrible idea.

 

[Sh3kel]

Allow me to clarify, one last time, just in case you don't know yet.

YES, IT IS SERIOUS, BUT IT IS ONLY A PROPOSAL AND HAS NOT BEEN RATTIFIED BY ANYONE YET. THIS IS NOT A COURSE OF ACTION.

 

[Hitro]

And what do you personally think about it?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I think it is a good step in the right direction. Such sanctions on their kin rather than being showered with money and prestige would have a good effect.

 

[G-Man]

How abut no - it's too late?

BTW here are a few things that should be mentioned -
1. The idea was about moving them from the west bank to gaza, not outside the PA.
2. It was supposed to be only the closest relative - parents, brotehrs, sisters.
3. The Israeli goverment found it illigal and therefore won't do it.
4. Families of suicide bombers get 25,000$ from our old friend Saddam and up to 50,000$ from the orgenization who sent thier son, so infact they gain from these things.
5. Lately a suicide bomber tape was released with the suicide bomber's mother next to him congratulating him and wishing him good luck in his attack.

 

[Greadius]

I don't know... one the one hand, I've never been a fan of the sins of the father type punishment. On the other hand, the fact that the families actually profit from their murder and, in some cases, encourage and support it is disturbing.

Question is: deport them to where? None of the other countries around Israel want them, they've already thrown them out once.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Greadius
Question is: deport them to where? None of the other countries around Israel want them, they've already thrown them out once.

Madagascar? Siberia? The Gulag Archipelago?

 

[IceBlaZe]

Abstract death, noted in passing

By Amira Hass

Anwar was 12 and her aunt Kamela Abu Sa'ad was 40 when they were killed Saturday by IDF fire. The Sa'ad family lives east of Gaza's El Bourej refugee camp, about 800 meters away from Israel's border. That afternoon, they took their sheep out to pasture, to land the family owns near the border. About a year ago, the IDF "flattened" the plot - meaning they uprooted its trees and raked the ground. Now, the shaved land is sprouting grass between the dried remains of a few uprooted trees.

The two suggested that Anwar's brother stay home, so the soldiers wouldn't suspect him to be a terrorist and shoot at him. "The soldiers will never shoot at us," they told him, assuming the soldiers had binoculars and would be able to identify them as a woman and a girl herding their sheep. That's what the brother told a field investigator for the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. When the boy was about 400 meters from the border, he saw an armored vehicle and some jeeps suddenly enter the area. Some soldiers got out of the jeeps and began shooting. The boy hid, and when he got the chance, without knowing what happened to his sister and aunt, he ran home to call for help and an ambulance. Suddenly, the shock waves of shells struck the air. A fire broke out in the dry field. The shooting stopped, but the troops remained in the field, so the ambulance crew was afraid to approach. Only two hours later did it enter the field, where it found the scorched bodies of the woman and girl. It's impossible to tell if they were killed by the shooting, or were wounded and trapped by the fire.

The IDF expressed its regrets. The deaths were mentioned in passing by the Israeli media. The deaths of Palestinian civilians caused by IDF troops - in their homes, on their streets and on the way to work - is an abstract matter for most Israelis. Palestinian grieving, the empty chair in a Palestinian classroom, is missing from the Israeli perception of reality.

On May 16, 7-year-old Amid Abi Sir was killed inside his family's home in the Askar refugee camp. IDF armored cars going in and out of the camp's main road is routine, and goes unreported. Children threw stones. Soldiers fired from inside the armored cars. Amid, who was getting ready to go to prayers at the local mosque with his father, was killed by an IDF bullet that pierced the walls of their house and ended up in his chest.

Waked al Khutub, 50, was shot in his bedroom Saturday night when an IDF force went into Tul Karm, as it has been routinely doing lately, and fired for a few hours. There was no exchange of fire. Presumably, the IDF's was deterrent fire. But it was lethal. And Bashir Ya'ish, a TV repairman from Balata, was killed walking in the street on May 22, when the IDF assassinated three members of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade in the camp.

What's abstract death for us is not abstract for the Palestinians. It is counted, added up. That's why about half the Palestinian public still supports the suicide bombings. For them, suicide attacks, with their declared purpose to harm Israeli civilians in their streets, their work places, their cafes, is only a reaction of someone who doesn't have tanks and helicopters. That doesn't convince the Israelis, and every terror attack strengthens their view that it is part of a grand scheme to evict them from the country. In the Palestinian areas, every reinforcement of the Israeli army, every fatal shooting, every tightening of the screws of the internal closure, does not convince the Palestinians that Israel's goal is only to fight terror. It strengthens their assumption that the Israelis want to perpetuate their rule over them - or push them out of the country through transfer.

Sometimes, in talks with Israelis, when Palestinian dead are mentioned, a logical argument comes up: The Palestinian suicide bombers intend to sow death and destruction where they blow up. The Israeli soldier has no such intentions. That's true, when the individual soldier is put next to the lone bomber and his controllers. But the Israeli soldier is not alone. He is part of a chain of command that serves the policies of occupation and settlement that have been held by all Israeli governments, including Ehud Barak's, and which these days serves the clearly ideological politics of the Israeli right wing. In other words, paving the roads, in its fullest meaning, is done to guarantee Israeli control over most, if not all, the West Bank and Gaza.

That the international border will be eventually determined by the locale, size, strength and resilience of the settlements is at the heart of that policy. But this is an anachronistic ideology. The army protecting this ideology is comprised of individual soldiers convinced that they are defending their homes, and wanting to go home. But their personal wishes don't turn the army's mission into something less ruthless. Unlike the murder of grandmother Ruth Peled and her baby granddaughter, Sinai Kenan, in Petah Tikva this week, the killing of the girl and her aunt in Gaza was the result of a mistake or negligence. But it was the natural outcome of the army's purpose, which serves a policy that regards the Palestinians as excess baggage in the land.

There have been many other cases of IDF soldiers blatantly shooting civilians, when no militant is around.
IDF Soldiers easy on the trigger, is no rare.
Should we now deport the families of those soldiers?
Not only that, the IDF rarely does anything about soldiers blatantly killing palestinian civilians.

The British forces managed to keep their triggers down most of the time in N.I., how come our army is so fast on the trigger?

 

[AVN]

IceBlaZe,

Great post, you have my greatest respect again.
Please read my PM.

 

[Hamlet]

Why on earth would you wish to punish the family of someone who commits a crime?

So we should start deporting the families of murderers now, as well?

Utter lunacy.

'Bad - it's counterproductive policy and will only incite more bombers'

Was the option I went for - because it will probably be the reality if it's implemented - more bitterness and hostitlity. God knows how it's suposed to stop suicide bombers. Unless you think the willingness to detonate yourself is genetic or something.

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
Deport bombers of families?

I see you were careful to do a good job of this poll

It was just a tactic, designed to confuse the enemy. Whoever that is!

When you're job is pumping out mideast threads as fast as you can, you don't bother with such niceties as accuracy!

R.III

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Hamlet
Why on earth would you wish to punish the family of someone who commits a crime?

So we should start deporting the families of murderers now, as well?

Utter lunacy.

'Bad - it's counterproductive policy and will only incite more bombers'

Was the option I went for - because it will probably be the reality if it's implemented - more bitterness and hostitlity. God knows how it's suposed to stop suicide bombers. Unless you think the willingness to detonate yourself is genetic or something.

The families should be punished both as a deterrent, and to lessen the rewards and status of 'martyrdom operations'. Cut off the monetary rewards, and crack down on the families. If they knew their actions were going to bring pain, suffering, misery and exile upon their families, rather than cash, earthly prestige, and heavenly rewards, then they might be less inclined to act in such a fashion.

It is part of a many faceted policy towards the problem - it is not the only solution, but it is part of it.

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
The families should be punished both as a deterrent,

No. You do not punish the innocent party, who have no link to the crime, and were not responsible for the actions of the guilty party. If the family was somehow invovled, then there is room for justification of legal action, otherwise, you are moving towards an opressive system.

Under this, you are punishing people who have not commited a crime, for the actions of another, seperate individual. You are punishing through the mere fact of blood relations.

In other words, you could be punished for having done nothing wrong yourself, personally.

I pity anyone who tries to defend that.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Hamlet


No. You do not punish the innocent party, who have no link to the crime, and were not responsible for the actions of the guilty party. If the family was somehow invovled, then there is room for justification of legal action, otherwise, you are moving towards an opressive system.

Under this, you are punishing people who have not commited a crime, for the actions of another, seperate individual. You are punishing through the mere fact of blood relations.

In other words, you could be punished for having done nothing wrong yourself, personally.

I pity anyone who tries to defend that.

An oppressive system is needed to utterly crush an implacable foe. It is a tactic that has worked throughout history; this is a version of the notion of holding hostages to ensure proper behaviour.

It may not be nice, or fluffy, or democratic, but that is irrelevant. There is a war going on that must be won. It does not matter if they have done nothing wrong; they are profitting from the proceeds of crime.
The families are being paid, monetarily and otherwise, for what amounts to a contract killing on a mass and indiscriminate scale. Thus, these 'profits' should be removed, and examples made.

 

[Grisu]

Originally posted by Hamlet

...you are moving towards an opressive system.

¨

and that is exactly simons goal, isn't it?

anyways, I voted for the BAD - it's another injustice... on the condition that you scratch the "another" and exchange the "it's" with "it would be"

employing these tactics sound somewhat nazi to me (as hitro said "Sippenhaft" comes to mind).

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
An oppressive system is needed to utterly crush an implacable foe.

So it's an oppressive system. By your own admission?

yay, thanks for giving my argument more weight with the sensible people.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by KaeptnOvi
¨

and that is exactly simons goal, isn't it?

anyways, I voted for the BAD - it's another injustice... on the condition that you scratch the "another" and exchange the "it's" with "it would be"

employing these tactics sound somewhat nazi to me (as hitro said "Sippenhaft" comes to mind).

You say that as if it were a bad thing!
It is the one method of guaranteed success against terror - out do them at their own game, as such...

 

[Hamlet]

Originally posted by G-Man
3. The Israeli goverment found it illigal and therefore won't do it.

'Unsurprising'.

This measure would most likely be illegal/unconstitutional in almost every democratic state on the planet.

Rule of law and all that.