A few questions for "Israelis" to ponder before punishing the innocent
Source: Daily Star, 04-07-2008
Editorial
Within hours of a bizarre attack in Occupied 'Jerusalem' (al-Quds) on Wednesday in which a Palestinian man rammed a payloader into buses and cars, killing three people before he was shot dead, 'Israeli' politicians were vowing to respond to the incident with a "tough hand." Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was among the first to suggest that authorities should consider holding the Palestinian man's relatives accountable for his crime by demolishing their homes, cutting off their social welfare benefits and revoking their 'Israeli' residency permits. Other politicians voiced similar determination to mete out a heavy-handed form of collective punishment in response to the attack.
The proposed measures, particularly that of home demolitions, have long been part of 'Israel's' "security" repertoire. The logic behind such types of punishment is that a potential attacker will be less inclined to carry out an act of violence if he/she believes that his/her family will suffer as a result of his/her actions. In the first few years after the eruption of the second intifada, 'Israel' carried out hundreds of home demolitions in an effort to limit armed attacks, but the uprising continued. The practice of demolishing homes in response to lethal attacks was later largely abandoned after 2005, when an army committee found that it both failed to deter attacks and served to enflame Palestinian hatred. But now it seems that leading politicians want to revive the tactic, whatever the potential costs.
The 'Israeli' public would do well to question the wisdom of their leaders at this juncture. Even in the absence of a serious study conducted by the military, it is possible for reasonable citizens to assess whether home demolitions and other harsh forms of collective punishment serve the interests of the Zionist state. They can begin by simply asking a few honest questions: Has 'Israel' achieved the kind of security that was envisioned through these policies? How are such policies likely to be viewed by the Palestinians, particularly those who do not espouse extremist views or the use of violence? Would 'Israelis' accept implementing the same kind of punishment for other types of criminals, and agree to the destruction of the family homes of Jewish 'Israeli' murderers, for example? How would the family members of Jewish criminals view a state that held them accountable for crimes in which they played no role? Would such measures successfully deter people from becoming murderers and bring about a society in which murders never occurred?
In the wake of an attack that has left the general public feeling uneasy, 'Israeli' politicians naturally want to demonstrate that they are being "tough" in their response. But 'Israelis' should be cautious when their leaders suggest implementing policies that amount to collective punishment. Such policies aren't tough - they're suicidal.
Editorial
Within hours of a bizarre attack in Occupied 'Jerusalem' (al-Quds) on Wednesday in which a Palestinian man rammed a payloader into buses and cars, killing three people before he was shot dead, 'Israeli' politicians were vowing to respond to the incident with a "tough hand." Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was among the first to suggest that authorities should consider holding the Palestinian man's relatives accountable for his crime by demolishing their homes, cutting off their social welfare benefits and revoking their 'Israeli' residency permits. Other politicians voiced similar determination to mete out a heavy-handed form of collective punishment in response to the attack.
The proposed measures, particularly that of home demolitions, have long been part of 'Israel's' "security" repertoire. The logic behind such types of punishment is that a potential attacker will be less inclined to carry out an act of violence if he/she believes that his/her family will suffer as a result of his/her actions. In the first few years after the eruption of the second intifada, 'Israel' carried out hundreds of home demolitions in an effort to limit armed attacks, but the uprising continued. The practice of demolishing homes in response to lethal attacks was later largely abandoned after 2005, when an army committee found that it both failed to deter attacks and served to enflame Palestinian hatred. But now it seems that leading politicians want to revive the tactic, whatever the potential costs.
The 'Israeli' public would do well to question the wisdom of their leaders at this juncture. Even in the absence of a serious study conducted by the military, it is possible for reasonable citizens to assess whether home demolitions and other harsh forms of collective punishment serve the interests of the Zionist state. They can begin by simply asking a few honest questions: Has 'Israel' achieved the kind of security that was envisioned through these policies? How are such policies likely to be viewed by the Palestinians, particularly those who do not espouse extremist views or the use of violence? Would 'Israelis' accept implementing the same kind of punishment for other types of criminals, and agree to the destruction of the family homes of Jewish 'Israeli' murderers, for example? How would the family members of Jewish criminals view a state that held them accountable for crimes in which they played no role? Would such measures successfully deter people from becoming murderers and bring about a society in which murders never occurred?
In the wake of an attack that has left the general public feeling uneasy, 'Israeli' politicians naturally want to demonstrate that they are being "tough" in their response. But 'Israelis' should be cautious when their leaders suggest implementing policies that amount to collective punishment. Such policies aren't tough - they're suicidal.
Comments
- Related News
