Israeli collective punishment on the families of "terrorists"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92398760

"If we have to destroy houses then we must do so, and if we have to stop their social benefits, we must do so." - Ehud Olmert

Earlier this year, a gunman opened fire at a religious school in Israel, killing several. He was an Israeli citizen of Palestinian descent. Recently, a Palestinian Israeli drug addict and construction worker rammed his bulldozer into other vehicles, killing 3 and wounding 30. His mental state and motives were unclear, though of course PM Olmert immediately declared the tragedy a terrorist act. This has prompted calls in the Israeli Parliament for new laws to punish the families of Israeli citizens who commit violent acts of terrorism, by destroying their residence, cancelling benefits like health care and unemployment insurance, etc. They hope it will deter terrorists from striking, if they know that their families will suffer because of their actions. Critics say that this proposal is racist, because they wonder if the punishments will also apply to Jewish Israelis who go on rampages against Arab Israelis or other Jews (and it has happened plenty of times in the Occupied Territories, as well as the Rabin assassination). But that is basically the equivalent of Japanese internment by the US Government during WWII. Collective punishment and guilt by association shouldn't be practiced by civilized societies. Moral arguments aside, this "deterrent" may not even be effective, since Hamas or other organizations would probably compensate the families for their losses at the hands of the Israeli Government, in order to score propaganda points.

Palestinians in the Occupied Territories have major travel restrictions on them, so they have very little ability to harm Israelis, apart from firing pop gun rockets over the security barrier. But when Israel annexed the predominantly Palestinian East Jerusalem after the 1967 War (a move deemed illegimitate by the UN, and most everyone else but the US), they granted Israeli legal status to the people there (not sure if they are full citizens). Although they can't vote, those Palestinians can travel freely in Israel and enjoy state benefits as Jewish Israelis do. A fifth of Israel's population is non Jewish Palestinian-Arab, and they are growing at a faster rate than their Jewish compatriots. But now Tel Aviv is wondering whether the "enemy from within" is a security threat to them, especially after the last two highly-publicized attacks (even though the majority of Arab Israelis are law-abiding and some even serve in government). So apart from imprisoning or killing terrorists involved in attacks on Jews, they also seek to punish the terrorist's family.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0721-31.htm

Similar to my previous emails on the issue, is this really about defense, or is it humiliation and revenge? Sadly, this "family punishment" proposal in Israel is eerily similar to NAZI tactics during WWII. Many conquered European nations resisted Nazi occupation, from France to Ukraine. The Nazis knew that the resistance/partisans/terrorists/whatever-you-want-to-call-them were happy to give their lives in battle. But maybe they would think twice if their families would suffer and ancestral villages were razed in retaliation. Maybe the occupied peoples would discourage resistance among their ranks, because they feared Nazi reprisals. But in practice, punishment as counterterrorism failed miserably. Nazi atrocities against locals as payback for resistance only served to outrage previously neutral parties and galvanize resistance. In fact it increased subsequent attacks on Germans, which prompted even more outrageous retaliation, and the cycle of violence continued. In fact, some in the Nazi High Command warned Hitler that this would happen and discouraged the use of collective punishment for resistance, but they were overruled.

Most of us would agree that collective punishment is wrong (don't tell that to Bush, McCain, and even Obama who are calling for more sanctions on Iran and Zimbabwe). Even the "wrathful God" of the Old Testament said he would spare a sinful city if there was but one just person living there. A family can exert only so much control over one of their own, so why should all of them have to pay for the crimes one person committed? Many Palestinians in East Jerusalem kept to themselves and weren't political, but after 1967 they suddenly found themselves living "inside Israel". They never asked for Israeli citizenship, yet never advocated or participated in Israel's destruction either. I am sure that many Arab Israelis disagree with some of the decisions of their government, just as many Americans disagree with Washington. This is what happens (and should happen) in a democracy and free society, and doesn't mean that those people are security threats. Unfortunately, some citizens do abuse their freedoms and lash out in violent ways against their perceived enemies. But why involve the rest of the family? That is petty and barbaric actually. Even the Mafia and other criminals show enough honor to heed the basic rule of gang violence: the families shouldn't be harmed. Did the US destroy Tim McVeigh's home and revoke citizenship/benefits for all his relatives?

As commander of a Nazi einsatzgruppen death squad in occupied Poland, Dr. Werner Best came to believe that the most effective response to terrorism was collective punishment. After the fall of France he went on to draft the Third Reich's counterterrorism policy for countries occupied by Germany. Towns where acts of "passive" resistance such as the cutting of telegraph cables had taken place were placed under curfews, fined and slapped with travel restrictions. "Active" resistance--the killing of a German soldier--would be met by reprisal killings of local civilians... Convinced that collective punishment was failing because it wasn't severe enough, the führer issued a September 1941 order to use "the harshest measures" against civilians in areas where the Resistance was active. Arguing that "only the [collective] death penalty can be a real means of deterrence," Hitler ordered that 50 civilians be executed for each German soldier killed.

- Ted Rall, CommonDreams.org

The 4th Geneva Conventions of 1949: Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited. Pillage is prohibited. Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.