Punitive demolitions is a classic case of threatening a population someone cares about in order to deter him from acting. Like all cases of deterrence, once the act is done, the punitive measures are useless and only undertaken to let others know that you are serious about the policy. An example was the Israeli policy of demolishing the houses of families of suicide bombers. Anyone who isn’t left with a bad taste in their mouths at the thought of threatening families for the activities of their adult relatives is, in the Muffti’s opinion, a moral dullard.
Of course, perhaps the ends justify the means. However, a commission headed by Maj. Gen. Udi Shani found that policy played nearly no effective role in deterrence. His commission recommended a cessation of the policy. Not only is it wrong, it’s ineffective. Furthermore, it doesn’t come as a deep surprise. An internal army study:
…published at the end of 2003 summing up the first 1,000 days of the conflict, said that “as of today, there is no proof of the deterrent influence of the house demolitions.” The number of attacks, said the report, even rose after the army began demolishing houses.
Big surprise: unfair policy leads to resentment. Apparently deterrence could be seen in a mere 20 cases where families turned in wanna-be attackers. The commission recommended the policy be terminated. Good riddance. Quotes from Haaretz
- Throw the Jew… - 4/10/2013
- Spotlight on Dhu Nuwas - 12/11/2012
- Hate Site of the Weak — Update! - 6/29/2012
*heh* the idf guy called you and muffti tembelim. except this time his ip address is in tel aviv and not in the kiryah. may be totally fake, but he did call you tembelim so he can come back ANY time 🙂
*chuckle*
Roman and Grandmuffti you can continue to play your games. I am reading what you wrote and I think all you are doing is playing games of logic. CK demonstrates an understanding of reality considerations that you two טמבלים do not comprehend. It did not matter what the study concluded. All it had to say was that demolitions should stop and that they are not illegal. In this way we can honor our agreements that we were already committed to. We could also have an answer to our population who does not want us to be soft on terrorists. Finally, we also look like a humanitarian army, which we are but it does not hurt to emphasiz it.
CK was right. The study was politically motivated. The results were dictated to Yaalon ahead of time by Mofhaz and his staff. Reading the news literally does not always give you the truth. Do you think we are so stupid that it takes us this long to know that demolitions do not work? We have been demolishing houses since before I was in the Army.
Josh I do not think you know who I am. Even if you did, I could not tell you. Laya, I wish I could tell you more about me, but that is impossible.
ck, what muffti said.
Also, here are some helpful instructions for upgrading wordpress 1.2 to 1.5.
ck, the results weren’t already a forgone conclusion, the suspension of the demolitions were a forgone conclusion. The study said that it wasn’t an effective detterent.
The cross outs were meant for comic effect, not to hide anything.
Muffti won’t let his ego get in the way of anything. He never did. And you can return the favour by not offering things obviously meant as (fallacious) arguments and then pretending you weren’t.
Anyhow, Muffti is about as sick as anyone could be of a topic. Josh, Muffti admires the IDF for having the courage to put out a self critical study on a policy. Perhaps we should all go read the study, as well as every study that comes out. It seems patently hypocritical (not strikeouts necessary) to selectively doubt studies one doesn’t like. Muffti doesn’t much care if its insulting to put it that way.
Roman: Can you cite any study undertaken by the IDF whose remmendations were implemented the next day? Whose recommendations were already being de facto implemented? Whose recommendations Israel had already committed to? How does one undertake an objective study when the results are already a foregone conclusion?
Please, demonstrate how the study was “politically motivated”.
Muffti,
all I ask is to take each study/article with a grain of salt. Scratch that, I go back to what ck,T_M are demanding ans that is to actually read the ACTUAL study.
FWIW, I admire the army for usually being upfront and truthful, though sometimes it falls head-over-heels to apologize when it shouldn’t need to, especially in case like the faked Mohamed Dura thing.
T_M,
it might sound like that to someone who just read #129, but I’m sure that you aren’t the type to stifle criticism of public institutions who are making sick plans to defame specific groups of people and politicians using these public institutions in sick ways.
#1, 23, 45, 46, 48, 96, 128.
Those are my contributions to this long discussion. In hindsight, I would address the last paragraph in ck’s post 136 by stating that I may not have been simple minded in this discussion, but I sure have been lazy.
Muffti wrote:
Sigh. One demonstrably politically motivated and suspect study does not the argument make either.
Your argument seems to rest on the idea that home demolitions are prima facie unjust. Says who? They have a solid legal basis, people may not like that but it is debatable nonetheless. That renders it prima facie nothing – merely debatable.
That’s the whole point. Your premises are flawed and you cannot authoritatively state anything decisively. Certainly, you are entitled to an opinion, naive and unnuanced as it may be, but to dismiss my opinion based on your flawed premises, well, sheesh. Really, you should know better.
The discrepancies were not all reported by the IDF. A member of Parliament is not speaking for the IDF. Members of the border police and other security services do not speak for the IDF, and finally, you continue to totally ignore the political context within which this report was released. I know politics is often not logical, but uh… neither is real life.
You make some bold statements about “patently invalid argument by decomposition” when really, I wasn’t arguing. Just offering a different perspective and perhaps some insight into the inner workings and motivations of the IDF.
Trying to discredit an attempt to present an opinion different from your own by saying it is patently invalid on the basis of logical grounds is a good technique. Following up with obscure concepts and multi-syllabic words is also good. But sadly, I am not arguing, I do not pretend to be presenting facts – just ideas and possibilities for your consideration. But you just keep getting so caught up in your academic hot air.
This is not a debate about the intricacies of logical reasoning. This isn’t even a debate, this is merely a presentation of different ideas and sources of info meant to flesh out an otherwise interesting story. Remember, the study was not made public – we had very sparse details. You however based your entire argument on that and simply poopooed other perspectives with dubious claims to prima facie status etc.
Finally your last paragraph was… well, it was insulting. Do you really assume that T_M and I are that simple minded? That we simply accept any study at its face value? That we are incapable of critical thinking? You implied hypocrisy, but I don’t need to rely on cross outs to say what I have to say. Muffti – you’re better than that. You REALLY should know better. Don’t let your ego get in the way of a discussion and exchange of ideas next time.
No, ck, Muffti will always love and respect ya, but he is still pretty dismissive. One IDF guy and a few of your cousins does not the argument make. The last quote you put seems to suggest (though its not super trustworthy) that the razing was a deterrent to putting up more houses, not to sending suicide bombers. In any case, Muffti thinks that all along people have been ignoring a central point that him and Roman have been urging: if you engage in a policy that seems prima facie to be unjust (i.e. harming people irrespective of their connection to a crime) you have to justify it by some higher good, like deterrence. Even if you don’t trust the study, you still owe a justification that shows that the deterrence was successful. And that means successful overall. A few cases of deterrrence does not prove anything unless we can guage how much harm it caused. (As Muffti ponted out before, even the cases of deterrence aren’t very clear unless you assume they are all veridical and the bombers would have succeeded.) By the way, the cases of deterrence were reported by the same IDF that wrote this study: why is no one sceptical of that figure?
All Muffti has really heard are some bad arguments, some inconclusive ‘a source(s) told me’ evidence (kudos to Roman for pointing out the dubious nature of anonymous sources making bold claims) and some ‘reasonable suspicions’ on behalf of ck, that in the end seemed to rest on an patently invalid argument by decomposition. Even the quotes you offer, ck, look totally indecisive. Of course the policy is useless now: that’s like Texas having no one commit any crimes and then saying ‘we won’t execute anyone for murder. Until someone commits a capital crime’.
Josh, interesting points all around but let me ask: a little while ago Muffti posted on how the Israeli’s determined that a young girl killed in gaza was in fact not shot by Israelis. Why did no one get up and yell and scream about studies then? Obviously the IDF (the same one you are talking about now, Josh) had good reason to come to the conclusion that they weren’t responsible. Did anyone run to their sources to find out if the inquiry was run correctly? Did TM demand to see the full inquiry report? It’s all good and well to poo-poo studies you don’t like, and then find some guy or other that you happen to like who claims its politically motivated. Muffti will drop this, but the next time any one of you
hypocritesfine bloggers posts the results of a study, inquiry or fact finding mission and use that as evidence for anything, please feel the appropriate intellectual shame.Finally, TM, what kind of a question is that?!?
Write in a word processor?! NEVER!
Roman, don’t be a shmendrick. I outlined my argument to muffti in a very simple, step by step manner. I’m sure if you ask him now, he may modify his heretofore dismissive tone.
Muffti based his argument on a study dripping with political motivation, as you yourself suspected initially and I based my assumptions on admittedly anecdotal evidence. Logic is a system or mode of reasoning and any dullard can see that my conclusions are just as reasonable as muffti’s.
I can add further to that if you give high credence to the printed word.
IHT
(emphasis added)
Arutz Sheva
Jerusalem Post
Arutz Sheva
Anyhow, I hope this demonstrates that things are not as cut and dried as the academic brigade tries to make it seem. And for the record, I have 10 years of University education under my belt. When I talk about Ivory towers, I speak from experience.
As for a preview button, you can write your posts in your fave word processor. A preview button is simply not currently happening, although at some point i may upgrade the software here from word press 1.2 to word press 1.5 which may allow all y’all to register in order to post and then you too can benefit from a preview button. Like friggin blogger. I dunno, maybe someone wrote a hack for it. We’ll see.
Also, I wonder what made this post so active.
Even though a nice portion of the posts is me spreading my thoughts over two to four submissions. Which is bad form. And could be avoided.
THE PREVIEW BUTTON IS YOUR FRIEND
Or at least, it would be, if you let it live.
Criticising Israel in any shape or form makes you evil now?
I must admit that speaking of logical arguement fallacies makes me hot. Keep it up, Muffti.
And to jump on the anon-wagon, what is it that you do and what are your sources of information, that you believe that the demolitions were effective? In other words, what do you know that the people conducting the study did not?
Oh, ck, you said that you aren’t “here as part of some academic pissing contest”. I took that to mean that you don’t tray to make your arguements academic. Which means that you don’t care if they are illogical (which they are, as Muffti demonstrated), which means you admit that you don’t care if you make any sense at all*.
What did I misunderstand?
*ie. that you have your sources which you yourself believe, but are useless in any kind of arguement. What Muffti would call the Fallacy of Anecdotal Evidence, or somesuch. My English logic terms are rusty.
Josh, must you sound like an enemy of Israel?
anon,
are you who I think you are?
Great point. Sharon is trying to woo two Arab members of Knesset to support the budget vote coming up (if it falls, there’s no retreat plan, and elections need to take place soon thereafter) and one of their demands is the end to house demolitions.
Just a reminder folks, the army is an arm of the government. While the IDF is not anywhere as deceitful as the American army vis-a-vis providing accurate information about its motives, it is still subject to the whims of the current deceitful ruling government who has continually shown the ability to generate ‘truth’, spin, and what have you.
When Yaalon came out against the plan, he was told to shut up and now he’s got the boot. The IDF webpage used to have lots of juicy stuff on Dahlan, but it has since disappeared since he turned angel and he is our ‘partner’. And now we have a story about a police agent who is being used to generate incitement that conveniently demonizes the right:
Maariv: Police informant behind inciting sticker and other juicy things…
I can confirm what ck just said about the ip address.
That still means nothing but I would challenge Muffti that what seems so obvious to him has eluded numerous people including some pretty smart ones on the Israeli Left.
I dunno dude. His IP address is IDF. Of course that could mean anything or nothing at all.
Muffti is confused. Why would you want a report that says that a certain policy is ineffective and then plan to resume the policy in the event htat suicide bombings resume? Won’t the entire EU and all leftists organization claim that by the IDF’s own independant report, they are ineffective? And, to echo Laya, who are you? Furthermore, what experiences have led you to believe that they are effective?
anon, I have to ask the obvious question: what is it that you do?
I have to say Mr. Muffti that maybe CK is correct. I am in a good position to make that determination because of my job. The opinion where I work is that demolitions have served us well and as noted by another guy, we made the report to justify an already made conclusion. The demolitions have been phased out because we don’t need them anymore. This was just a public relations action. I promise you that if suicide bombings resume, so will demolitions because we know from experience that they have always been effective. Maybe CK is correct and you should spend less time at the university and more time in the field.
CK, the fallacy of decomposition is not a matter of presumption. It’s a matter of bad logic. Muffti’s stupidest undergrad students manage to see this. Why can’t you? Anyhow, given your past penchant to, ummn, make up facts and sources when required, you can understand Muffti’s reluctance to trust you when you mention them. Being a self appointed expert on ‘the real world’ because you have a few cousins ‘in the field’ doesn’t give you leeway to go around using arguments that are obviously (and embarrasingly) fallacious. And to think it’s guys like you, who know the ‘real world’ and think of things like ‘logic’ as merely for the ivory tower run the world. Scary.
Finally, #119 is Roman’s comment, not Muffti’s. Muffti and Roman part ways in that I have been given no grounds whatsoever to distrust a commission recommended by the IDF that concluded that for years the IDF has been knocking down houses to a detrimental effect. If anything, Muffti would distrust a study that gave the IDF a shiny badge of approval for it, since at least it would be in their interest to say that.
Love ya Roman,
you’re invited for shabbos anytime.
The fallacy of decomposition. Sheesh. I can presume anything I like. I am not saying that my presumptions are absolute truth either. They are just as valid as anything you’ve asserted, especially since your sole authority is a report that is suspect at best… by your own standards. See #119. As for my “sources” many members of my family in Israel are in the security services. They all have internet access. I’ve been talking to them since my return and one of the things we discussed is demolitions. But whatever. That’s the real world and I know thats an area you’re not too good with. So I’ll just try to be kind to ivory tower boy here.
Muffti is getting rather embarrassed watching ck use an obviously fallacious argument over and over and over again. You say:
Obvious intended conclusion: the demolitions helped bring an end to suicide bombing.
Muffti would fail any students of his that used that argument form. That argument is about as good as the following argument form:
Hopefully you can see the point: the sum of your activities may be sufficient to make you popular. It does not in any way, shape or form follow that all your activities contribute to your popularity. You may be popular despite some of your activities (like you child molesting. Muffti has spoken to ‘friends of yours’ and they all confirm it. Muffti thinks they were the same ‘security officers in the field’ you consulted.) The situation is exactly paralleled in Israel. Sure the sum of their activities is responsible for what happens: it doesn’t follow that all their activities contributed positively. The sum total may have been sufficient even though various parts contributed negatively.
It’s called the fallacy of decomposition. It’s called the fallacy of decomposition for a reason. So please, stop using that argument form. It hurts you. It hurts Muffti. It probably hurts hashem.
Roman:
Those are your words Roman. The fact remains that suicide bombings have effectively ended. The sum total of Israel’s policies can be presumed to have brought that to an end. Part of those policies included demolitions.
Now those policies are no longer necessary, so the army set up a commission to find just that and then justify provisionally ending demolitions. As you yourself said:
Is it any wonder I am suspicious of their findings and methodology? Especially since the comssions findings were implemented a day later? Seems a bit too well orchestrated.
At least in my circles, I would say there’s much greater demand for EEs than AEs. But again, that’s my circles and I admit they are limited in scope.
Electrical Engineering? Are you insane? Why would I want to inflict such horrors upon myself?
Dude, drop the aerospace engineering and go for electrical engineering. Get your friends to go for the chemical engineering.
It isn’t very fun to argue with someone who admits he makes no sense, ck.
Damn you.
Sorry, Middle.
And I’m studying Aerospace Engineering, so I doubt I’ll be any help with the energy issues.
A military officer in the field is considered akin to an administrative decision maker. The test for reasonableness in such a case is would a resonable officer under similiar circumstances do the same thing. Of course soldiers are subject to the judiciary, but for the most part, officers are given a wide lattitude in terms of what they can and cannot do. Even the Geneva convention offers them such lattitude. But wrt to demolition of homes, once the decision is made to demolish a home, there is no possibility for judicial review. Hobbeling officers in cases of military necessity, now that’s what I call dangerous.
As for uselessness, well, I don’t care. I have sufficient and reasonable grounds to believe what I believe. I’m not here as part of some academic pissing contest. I’m not here to prove who is the most cunning logician. I’ve been accused of being completely unreasonable and morally inept. As ck goes, so goes Israel and the IDF.
Not to mention Evil Red-Eyed Christ Killing Muffti. Who is hot too.
Can’t we all move to the hot violinist thread? I mean, Abbas is okay, but still.
Roman, along with the chemistry and language issues, you also need to read more carefully. It was I, not ck, who advised you to study harder…
Now listen well: debating on the Internet is useful for clearing one’s head; for developing a clearer line of thinking over a particular topic; for learning what others with differing views are thinking and why; and for crushing those pro-Palestinian advocates who lie or misrepresent acts and facts in order to make their case.
Arguing on the Internet, however, has no tangible value and is more of a social activity. While this debate will go into the archives, your grades might affect your future. Since we would all like you to have a bright, shining future where your innate ability with chemicals enables you to discover and develop an alternative to oil so that you can be very wealthy and the Arabs can stop holding the West hostage, please do study harder.
Thank me later.
Heh. CK, you always amuse Muffti and he loves you for it. Another round?
You say:
Right. Surely there was a presumption. But the whole point was that the presumption may very well be false and we wouldn’t know anyways because as you say, there is no administrative review. And I am pretty sure that the presumption was just that; a presumption. If any other civilized country applied punitive measure on the basis of a presumption of passive acquiesence, you would be appaled and you know it. Anyhow, Muffti agrees about justification by deterrence: Muffti thought the whole quarrel was over the effectiveness of the deterrence.
Next, you say:
CK, no one doubts that the average suicide bomber didn’t perform his mission solely and completely on account of a demolished house. But what is at issue was whether or not the contributions overall of the demolitions policy was a partial cause of suicide bombings. Anyhow, Muffti doesn’t see how a few pre-bombing videos really shows very much about the overall motivation. But keep it up…you are giving Muffti even more proof of the ‘ck makes bold unjustified assertions’ claim.
Next, as to the absence of suicide bombing, Muffti supposes there is an ambiguity inherent in the notion. Muffti was using suicide bombers to include attempted suicide bombing even if caught. That certain didn’t end with arafat (see here for a case. Surely if there are attempted suicide bombing, it isn’t a sign that deterrence is working very well. (Though, of course, it does make a good case that the fence and checkpoints are working well. Muffti is certain you havent’ seen him or Roman argue against those because, in opposition to demolitions, those seem to actually acheive the end they aim at).
Anyhow, it isn’t exactly relevant how many suicide bombers there have been. It’s not really the only form of terror you are trying to deter. Say that the demolitions were a partial cause of militants firing quassams. Or that they helped cause terrorists to fire at Israeli soldiers. All of these are things are bad results. In fact, if the policy pushed more people into other forms of terrorism besides suicide bombing, Muffti takes it that that counts against the effectiveness of the policy.
Next, maybe it would be nice if you said a little more about these ‘security people in the field’ who ‘feel’ that the number 20 is low. Maybe you want to say a little more about there evidence, there methods. Trash a study all you like but the Muffti will put his credences in a study long before he trusts some unspecified sources that ck
made upclaims to have spoken to (ahem, since he RETURNED from Israel…)We can agree on one thing, however. We can all celebrate the end of the policy.
Two things wrong with the above.
Saying that a decision by a military officer is not subject to judicial review is wrong and dangerous.
Speaking to “security people in the field” merely gives you some anecdotal evidence. Is it worthless? No. But it’s useless in a logical arguement.
Muffti wrote:
The policy of home demolition was based on many different things. There was always the presumption that the families, through passive acquiesence or willful blindness were at least somewhat involved, if not actively. However none of this really mattered. If the suicide bomber or terrorist lived in the structure, the military commander in the field had the option of expelling the residents and either sealing or outright demolishing the home. Given the military nature of the context, this was an administrative decision not subject to judicial review and under his sole discretion. So was it insensitive? Yes. Does it matter? No. The only thing that matters is whether the act was reasonable – ie did it serve some military purpose such as deterence.
As for the red herring, you can’t ignore the fact that suicide bombings were not carried out as a response to home demolitions. They were motivated by the continued presence of Jews in Israel. Watch a couple of the cool pre-bombing videos some of these guys put out. Find me one where the bomber states “I am doing this because they destroyed a home.” Instead what you will find is many references to the occupation of Palestine by the Zionist aggressors.
Muffti continues:
Uh. No. Suicide bombing effectively ended when Yasser Arafat was still alive. The reason for this was the fence and increased Israeli vigilance. The last successful suicide bombing in Beer Sheva happenned in an area where the fence was not yet complete. Sure Abbas and Sharon agreed to a cessation of hostilities, but as far as suicide bombings are concerned, that was already a moot point. I mean Abbas pledged to stop the firing of Quassam rockets into Israel and that hasn’t ccompletely stopped yet.
As for my “baseless” reasonable grounds, that is again in your humble opinion. Everything you say seems to rely solely on that one study. Having spoken to security people in the field, they feel the number 20 (potential suicide bombers turned in by their families) is very low. They also tell me that many more people than that have been dissuaded from carrying out missions specifically because of the consequences to their families.
This is all moot anyways. The policy has always been subject to much criticism, internationally as well as domestically. I’m glad it’s over. I hope Israel does not ever feel the need to reapply it. Sheesh.
Actually, Muffti dose tpyos adn grammar bad on purposly.
ItsIt’s fun, it upsets ck and (Muffti suspects) maks TM roll his eyes and shake his head sadly. But, a preview button may persuade Muffti to stop.Glad you’re back, Roman. Sorry about the chem final. You should really take a page out of ck’s book: everytime they say you got a question wrong, tell them that its just some studies and some experiments that makes them think you are wrong, and what the hell could a study and some experiments ever prove anyways?!? Tell them you have reasonable grounds to assume you’re right.
And going completely off-topic, dear Mr. ck, my horrible English is one of the finest to pass through the Israeli education system.
Sad but true.
Tired of Roman’s horrible typos and missing and duplicated words?
Please, give us a preview button.
Think of the children!
Back from the Technion. Hope you didn’t miss me too.
Josh and Ephraim – never, ever stop posting. Reading your thoughts is like reading good satire. Kafka’s got nothing on you.
ck, saying that the Arabs started it, and they what they do is worse, doesn’t make it okay to enforce this policy.
I’d like to hear about the evidence that provide you with the “reasonable grounds” you speak of.
The above was written before Muffti’s last post, so forgive for repeating a bit, but we’ve been doing this for the last four days anyway.
And I should’ve listened to you, ck. I’ve probably failed the General Chemistry final.
CK, you are clearly master of the unproven assumption. Muffti applauds the way you boldly assert things, no matter how unjustified. Let’s see.
That is a rather wild assumption on your behalf. Furthermore, Muffti wouldn’t be nearly as appalled if we had reason to believe that was true. In fact, however, this doesn’t seem to be the case. Boaz Ganor, counterterrorism expert, for example, claims:
…the policy has been applied too indiscriminately during the past four years but should not be halted entirely. The military should keep razing houses if relatives of an attacker were involved in violence or if an attack led to large numbers of Israeli casualties.
In other words, the policy wasn’t sensitive to the involvement of the family.
Next, ck said:
Well, we can all agree that the suicide bombing came first, then the house demolitions. So what? The question was whether or not the policy deterred suicide bombers and furthermore, whether it caused more motivation to suicide bomb than it removed. So this is what philosophers call a complete red herring.
OK, next:
Again, so what? The absence of suicide bombing was part of a deal reached between the Israelis and Abbas. And surely Palestineans are sick of this conflict. And, surely, they didn’t like having their houses demolished. But what is this supposed to show? The question was whether or not the policy acted as a deterrent or whether its effects were deterimental.
Finally,
Well, Muffti has reasonable grounds to believe that it didn’t, at least not overall. That was the point of the study. Trash it all you like, but all you have, well, as usual, bold conjecture. (Oh, sorry, and ‘reasonable grounds’ that you have given no reason to have). Muffti is glad to see that you never lost your rhetorical power.
Anyhow, why is everyone trashing the study? I mean, if the standard of proof is complete knowledge of exactly what would have happened had the policy not been instituted, then granted no human study could ever prove that. But that’s true for any policy whatsoever. So the best we can do is get a reasonable overall picture. So far we have 20 possible cases of successful deterrence.
(Of course, this abstracts away from all the other ways the policy hurt Israel in general, but we need not get into that I suppose. It also assumes that all 20 turned in suicide bombers really were going to suicide bomb. For all we know, they would have chickened out at the last minute, they might have not made it past the border security etc. etc. etc. Thus, we should assume a ratio of 1 attempted suicide bomber: 5-6 Israeli dead ratio. We have to factor in to account the rate of success. )
Muffti: The Roman example is poor. The houses being demolished are not random. They are the houses where the suicide bomber lived, while preparing for his mission, under the watchful eye of his close knit Palestinian family.
I dare say that the temerity of the Jews to continue living in Israel was enough of a provocation to justify suicide bombing in the minds of the bombers. Remember, first came the bombings, then came the home demolitions. It’s not a chicken and egg thing, it’s simple logic. Did home demolitions create further provocations that increased the number of bombers? You can’t prove it either way, but again, first came the suicide bombers, then came the demolitions.
Flowing from all that is the current relative absence of suicide bombings. It’s not a stretch to presume that Palestinians have tired of the toll taken by their past tactics and have moved on to other methods to get what they want. Part of that toll is the detruction caused by home demolitions, especially now that Saddam Hussein isn’t around to play sugar daddy to the families of suicide bombers.
Did the study prove anything? No. Did I? No. But I have reasonable grounds to believe that destruction of homes saved lives. It’s a reasonable possibility that can’t be dismissed out of hand. And now, the suicide bombings have ceased. I consequently have no problem with a cessation of home destructions. My morals remain intact, sharp as ever.
Josh, the question you put to the Muffti was answered. Let Muffti summarize it in 3 quick points. First, merely showing that some lives were saved by a policy isn’t sufficient to justify the policy. After all, I take it that if you had a policy that save 2 lives but for every 2 lives saved took 20 more, you would abandon the policy (this is just an example). Second, I don’t really see why calling something ‘immoral’ entails relativism? I take that we all believe roughly the following principle: you should not harm people in retaliation for an act that they did not cause. That is a basic principle of justice. Now, sometimes we should ignore the demands of justice because there is a higher good, i.e. saving lives. But if you do something that is patently unjust in order to save lives, you obviously have a responsibility to show that the action is actually achieving that goal in a way that doesn’t provoke more harm than good. Third, let me ask a hypothetical question: say that we knew that arbitrary execution of 10 random arab men would deter 15% of the would-be terrorists. Out of curiousity, would you be ok instituting this policy knowing that it would save more lives than you would take away? The same principle is at play: that the utility calculus comes out ahead for you by following the policy compared to if you didn’t. But can Muffti get away with saying that only a moral dullard would advocate random executions (a la the Romans who would kill 10% of the males in a town that revolted, no matter whether those men were directly connected to the revolt?)
I agree that the study isn’t a deliverance of God. But I still don’t understand: what’s the counter-evidence against the study? What is the evidence that says that this is an effective policy? Why should it be that a policy that looks on its face to completely ignore property rights needs to be proved ineffective by detractors rather than proved effective by advocates?
Thanks Ephraim.
If muffti thinks that I’m avoiding the issue, well…
We agree that: House demolitions don’t stop all the bombers.
We agree that: House demolitions have definitely prevented some potential killers from acting on suicidal tendancies and,
We agree that: House demolitions, at the same time, quite definitely do motivate others to take up the jihad as well.
And claiming that something is ‘not moral’ is relativism which should ironically equally allow me to claim that it is very moral.
The question still unanswered by you as well, is if more attacks are prevented than motivated. The onus is equally on those against this defensive measure that has definitely been proved to save Jewish lives to prove that it actually causes more Jewish death, something that I haven’t seen in the reports on the report. If there is at least ONE thing that we’ve learnt from the internet, it’s that you can’t believe in the one report/article as ‘torah from sinai’. Especially if it’s coming from an army, any army.
The origianl reports related that the army has decided at this time to refrain (not cease) from the demolition policy but to ‘reexamine’ its ‘legal right’ to reinstate it if the atmosphere changed. Anyway, I couldn’t find the original report on the net.
Grace:
If I were younger and single without kids of my own, I would definitely think about what you said.
OK, Roman, so you don’t have a solution. So why are you bothering to say anything? Just to mewl about what meanies the Israelis are? THAT’S really helpful.
I oppose the house demolition policy mainly because it is defensive instead of offensive, reactive instead of aggressive. This just proves to the palestinians that Israel is weak. However, while I think Israel should be more aggressive in pursuing a military option, strictly from a theoretical point of view, if destroying all of the palestinians’ houses saves even a single Jewish life, it is worth it. The study shows that some homicide bombers HAVE been deterred by the threat of home demolition. So what if it doesn’t stop EVERY bomber? Some of them ARE deterred. That is more than enough of a reason to keep doing it.
The reason is simple: if you think I give a rat’s ass about the “immorality” of destroying the houses of people who raise their kids to blow up Jews, you’re mistaken. I repeat: this is NOT an issue of crime or individual guilt or innocence (anyway, as I said before, it is impossible for a homicide bomber to hide what he is doing). Israel is in a war with the palestinians and they need to start acting like it. Whatever civilian deaths that might result from justified Israeli military action (and Israel will certainly do everything it can to avoid such deaths) can be laid directly at the door of the palestinians who hide behind their women and children, hoping they will be killed in the crossfire so they can cry to the world about the cruel Zionists.
And any Jew who says “What do you expect them to do? Israel is strong and they are weak. They are fighting in the the only way they know how. Do you expect them to fact the Israelis squarely? They wouldn’t satand a chance.” Well, genius that is the whole point! If you accept why they are fighting this way, it can only be because you think that in some way their fight is justified enough for them to act in this manner. Any Jew who thinks like that really needs to see a shrink. The palestinians are fighting to destroy Israel. NOTHING justifies what they do.
Regarding palestinian civilians vs. soldiers: there are PLENTY of palestinians in uniform with guns: all of the “policeman” whom Shimon Peres armed in his infinite wisdom, for example. They sit back and let the homicide bombers and the Kassam launchers do whatever the hell they please. There are thousands of them, and they are all enemies of Israel who either actively participate in terrorism themselves or aid and abet it. Israel needs no permission from anyone to shoot them on sight.
Josh, may Hashen protect you. Chazak veamatz. May you go from strength to strength.
Sorry, TM. Muffti was going for maximum coverage rather than accuracy 🙂 You’re officially stricken from the list. As for information, Muffti thinks that the burden of proof in this case is squarely on pro-demolishers. If you are going to implement a policy of punishing those not directly connected, you sure as hell should have a good justification for it. From that end, I think that the lack of information plays into the anti-demolishers hands.
We still buds?
Um, wait, I take offense to that last post. I most certainly did address this issue by pointing out that since we know that some lives have been saved, the question then becomes what is a life worth and how many more were killed as a result of this policy.
I also suggested that the policy may have other effects such increasing the war weariness of the Palestinians.
I also said that I sure would like to read the report because otherwise, there is a lot of conjecture here by all parties including those who fully oppose any demolitions. I also don’t recall berating, mocking or laughing at you or Roman, although I recall chiding Roman to get back to his studies – advice by which I stand.
So take it easy and don’t put us all in the same stew. Also, don’t be so confident in your position because the key element we are all missing is…information. I’d like to see the report.
Muffti most certainly was being sarcastic. Many appologies if it offended your sensibilities. The point wasn’t to seriously float the idea of genocide; the idea was that there is an obvious slippery slope when we accept that punitive means against potentially innocnet parties justify ends: would you tear down an entire village to save a life? Is a life only worth one house of the family of the terrorist?
Muffti thought the main point of the study was that not only is tearing down a house a nasty thing to do, it turns out to be ineffective. And, to repeat, it’s not even the terrorist’s house you are tearing down, it’s his families. So, what Muffti and Roman have been saying, since the wee numbers of this long set of posts, has been that when you do something that is patently immoral, the goddamned least you could do is show that it is effective in achieving the relevant means. Somehow, Muffti feels that this request has been laughed at, berated, mocked but never answered by all y’all tough guys who keep on blathering about how a life is worth a cement house. Of course it is; but now go prove that that has anything to do with what actually is taking place. So you, and ck, and TM, and Ephraim can go ahead and speculate all you like about how effective the policy has been. Maybe go do a study.
Muffti recognizes Josh’s point. You’re right. What we should really do is burn down the entire village any suicide bomber comes from
For the record, Roman and Muffti, you will never, EVER, hear or read me saying something like what I quoted you above posting. Not even sarcastically. (So yeah, please stop putting words in people’s mouths.) I don’t think it, don’t believe in it, don’t think it’s a ‘solution’, and really, really think it’s disgusting for someone to suggest it even in jest or sarcastically. But you know from whom I do hear it? People like you, Roman, and my other leftist (far and centre) friends, co-workers, and fellow miluimniks whose sick minds even fathom the idea. My most rightist Kahane/Habad friends might talk about damage to property or paying those Arabs who can’t stand us to leave, but once again, the only people to think about massacring Palestinian Arabs are you guys, even if you deny it or say that it’s not practical.
Roman says: Moreover, the only way to stop the entire people, short of satisfying its needs, is complete destruction. FWIW, and your sick mind (you only claim that destroying them won’t happen soon, not that it’s preposturously horrible), this genocide you suggest would not help at all because…we’d still have to deal with each other. Do you know why the Arabs are winning? Because they succeeded with standard Israeli war doctrine; Move the battle back into enemy territory ASAP. What do I mean? They attacked inside the green-line and then they waged a massive psychological war through our own media and the world until the large part of the world Jewish population has one major case of the Stockholm Syndrome (identifying with the enemy). (aw shucks, how cruel to destroy a house 🙁 The way I see it? The war has little to do with the Arabs, and mainly to do with ourselves the Jews in Israel and those in the galut as well. If the Arabs would see the entire world Jewish population united in strong support of Israel and the right to live on the land of Israel, I know that they would shortly thereafter realize that there’s no use in fighting us anymore. But in the meantime, they see us bickering and they see that some/many Jews will even fight the war for them by pursuading others to ‘disengage’ or that surrendering to Arab demands to make territory Jew-free will bring peace.
I don’t mean that we can ignore the Arab front. I would fully support the army going into Gaza (as suggested above and me included – I put my body where my mouth is) and weeding out the armed terrorists, bandits, and their leaders. But the main battle is with ourselves. If the Jewish people thinks that they can give up a few parcels of the land then frankly, there really is no reason to fight for any of it, right? Going into Jenin or Gaza is pointless if we are then going to give it ‘back'(?), or conitnue to justify the Jew-free status of these places. How many sayeret matkal, shayetet soldiers, yasam police units as well as regular Joes risked their lives to arrest terrorists and collaborators only to see them released en masse? And if we love studies as much as you do, then what about the other one released this week saying that 50% of released prisoners return to terrorism? I can promise you that since these guys know that theit house will not be destroyed, in the upcoming release many more will have ‘nothing to lose’. A house of cement is very small price to pay for killing even one Jew, or maybe you don’t think so?
Shavuah tov.
Muffti only has eyes for yours, uppity shikseh…when you are going to come visit your ol’ favourite Jersey town?
Between Roman and Muffti’s grammar and spelling, one has to wonder about students today….
In honour of Muffti gaining pole position in the coveted Most Commented stakes, I would just like to confirm that yes, his eyes always get all red and glowy like that when he sees boobies.
Muffti is so digging Roman, both in content and style. He doesn’t even care that ‘demolitioning’, though it uses a productive morpheme, is (regretably) not a word. As for ‘talk like Muffti day’, well, every day is like that for the muffti. Live the dream.
I said “demolitioning”. Three times.
Where’s my education?
Good morning, my lovlies.
Roman declares today “Talk Like Muffti Day“.
Roman would also like to repeat Muffti’s words.
The Palestinians don’t want to meet Israel on a battlefield. The IDF would kick their asses.
Why would they choose to fight face to face when they can just keep blowing up civilians until we give up?
The solution Roman proposes? Who the fuck was talking about a solution?
A) Roman and Muffti were just saying that demolition homes is silly.
B) If you think that demolitioning homes is a, eh… solution…. well, you’re as silly as was the policy.
You seem to be saying “well, if we don’t demolish houses, what do we do?” – correct Roman if he’s wrong.
DavidW, no one said anything about not attacking with impunity. You guys are just so funny!
Grace, name calling isn’t nice! And I must congratulate you on your flawless process for genetic screening. Read their blog comments! Genius!
Ephraim, Mazal Tov.
By the way, Grace, where do you come from that people who express joy at the end of policy of collective punishment are bleeding heart liberals? Iraq? Pakistan?
The palestinians will not be the downfall of Israel. Bleeding heart hippie liberals will be it’s demise.
Ephraim, I want to have your babies! ;-D
TM always enjoys reading Muffti in the third person.
At what point do their soldiers get the blame for dressing as civilians and hiding among the civilian population? If their soldiers are attacking us, we have to take the fight to them. If they want to cowardly hide among their civilian population, then, well, their civilians are going to be hurt and/or killed. And that is their fault, not ours.
Israel is not Syria. We can’t just raze the town, pave over it, and let that be a lesson to the rest of them. But we also can’t just let them attack us with impunity just because some civilians might get hurt when we go after them.
Anyhow, how do you propose to take this fight to them? The point of them not being an army in the traditional sense is that they are hard to identify. They don’t wear uniforms. They don’t have id cards that lists them as ‘terrorists’. In a sense, they all look the same 🙂
Muffti is all for killing their soldiers. He thought that the main problem consisted in doing it in such a way that we don’t kill everyone else as well. When you said:
Muffti took it to mean that you didn’t just mean soldiers etc. Pardon the misunderstanding.
Muffti always refers to himself in the third person. Fuck you if you don’t like it.
No. I am saying fight them and kill their soldiers. You know, the ones with guns and bombs. Is that so hard to understand?
Typical of you to think that I am proposing genocide and well-poisoning. I am saying take the battle to them instead of passively defending ourselves like we’re ashamed of it. Invade, re-occupy, disarm, and fumigate.
Why is that so hard to understand?
And are you really referring to yourself in the third person?
That is just too funny.
Ephraim, part of Muffti’s problem with what you are saying is that he is not sure what you are actually proposing. We could do lots of things that would guarantee an end to the intifada. We could drown every male child in the Jordan river. We could poison their wells. We could burn their cities to the ground Dresden style (are you ok with that as well?) Are you really ok with these sorts of things?
That’s right, Roman, I don’t see your point. What is your proposed solution? That the Israelis should just be nicer and try to understand the palestinians a little better? If you think that actually fighting the palestinians full-on as opposed to this nickel-and-dime stuff is not the solution, what do you propose? All you have said is that fighting them won’t work.
What WILL work, then, Sherlock? Total capitulation was tried at Oslo and look where that got us.
Frankly, I think if the palestinians had been defeated and occupied the way the Germas were, this would have been long over. Militarily, they haven’t suffered anywhere near what the Germans suffered, although propaganda seeks to make it so. True, their dream of killing all of the Jews may have been shattered, their Arab protectors may have turned out to be broken reeds, there have been refugees, checkpoints, “humiliation”, etc. But they have not really suffered the sheer carnage that befell Germany as a result of its aggression. The palestinians were not really defeated in ’48 and ’67, the Jordanians, Syrians and the Egyptians were. Israel really hasn’t tried a real military option with the palestinians because they’re too nice to do it. This is noble, but it may be their undoing, G-d forbid. It certainly doesn’t earn them any points with the “world community”.
Anyway, think about what you are saying for a moment: if the palestinians actually ARE more fanatic than the Nazis, how will it ever be possible to make peace with them, no matter what concessions Israel makes?
Anyway, I propose that israel meet the palestinians on the battlefield as they seem to want, defeat tham, and force them to sue for peace. This may or may not work. You may consider it immoral. Fine, go to town. But at least I am proposing something. And you of course realize that Israel has not even exercised a fraction of it’s true military capabilities. They are restrained by their Jewish morality and threats of sanctions from the hypocritical, cowardly, anti-Semitic Arab-worshipping sycophant nations of the world.
What do YOU propose?
And did you have to bring the J-man into it? If you want to cuss me out, go ahead and do it. Why waste your time with euphemisms?
I would never repeat myself about home demolition serving as deterrent.
“make me understand”.
Isn’t there a petition somewhere, calling for a functional preview button?
Oh, sorry I ignored you, Middle. Kinda hard to concentrate right now.
Anyway, as Muffti already said, the checkpoints are a neccessary evil. They could have been conducted better, but that’s a different issue.
Yes, they maybe causing some trouble as well, but it’s pretty obvious that but for them, Israel would be overrun by suicidal maniacs. They are there to prevent bombers from entering, see? They weren’t put there to piss of some Europeans and cause Palestinian stillbirth rates to rise.
The demolitions on the other hand, are simply a vengeful punishment. They can’t be proven to do much good. Well, maybe they can somehow, but they weren’t.
I’d think that the difference between punitive punishment of an entire househould for the sins of a single person who lived there and a necessary measure to lower the number of exploding crazies in Israel is pretty obvious.
The only way you can fault what I just said, that I can see, is saying that the checkpoints are just as useless as bulldozing houses.
But of course, you won’t do that. You’ll just say something you already said – much like myself – hoping that by repitition you could some how make understand how what you are saying makes sense – much like myself.
Man, this is getting tiring.
Yehoshua ha Nozri on a stick, Ephraim. You really aren’t capable of actually understanding what I say.
I’d deal with you in the morning. Or not. Hopefuly not, because it really is a waste of time.
One thing you did understand correctly is that the Palestinians are more fanatical than zee Germans. No shit, Sherlock?
All it took in Germany was the destruction of the leadership, occupation, and some firebombing. The Palestinians have been taking it up the ass for the last, oh, fifty years, and still put up a fight. Fanatical? They? Nah.
They’re just being, uh… stuborn. Yeah, that’s it.
Dammit, I said “it’s” when I meant “its”. I hate it when I do that.
Cne you please put in a Review function and a spell checker?
I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, Roman, I’m trying to understand what it is you are saying.
You appear to believe that the homicide bombers are desperate civilians who do what they do because they have nothing to lose. I think you are entirely mistaken in that. Homicide bombing requires a vast network of 1) propaganda to brainwash people into blowing themselves up, 2) material and expertise to construct the bombs, and 3) a network of people to get the bomber to his target. A lone individual cannot just put one of those things together in his basement without anybody knowing about it.
Anyway, a homicide bomber is not a civilian. He or she is a soldier in a war.
I most definitely do not advocate “raping” the palestinians, whatever that means. Talk about putting words in someone’s mouth. I advocate engaging the palestinians in the war they started and pursuing it until they surrender and lay down their arms. By that I mean killing their soldiers and commanders, both military and political, up to and including Abu Mazen if necessary. The palestinian “security forces” are all terrorists anyway, and they are armed and in uniform, so Israel should start with them. I most certainly do not advocate the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians.
My point about what the Allies did to Germany is quite simple: when free people are forced to fight a despotic and fanatic foe which sees the wanton murder of innocent civilians as a perfectly acceptable method of conducting warfare, they must either respond as the situation demands or be eventually defeated. And the palestinians are most definitely attacking Israeli strategic assets: it’s children and it’s spirit. Are you actually saying that simply because the terrorists are cowards and murder children in their cradles instead of attacking an army base or a refinery they are somehow immune since they are not acting like regular soldiers? What are you, crazy?
You protest that all you mean is that palestinian morality is not inferior to ours, it is just different. I don’t believe that you are serious about that, but if you are, you need to get your head examined. Deliberately blowing up women and children is not immoral? I guess the palestinians are just “differently moralled” and we must respect and cherish all different moralities, since one morality is no better than another.
You’re kidding, right?
You seem to believe that the Nazis were stopped because the Allies destroyed their war-making capacity but that this won’t work with the palestinians since they have no strategic assets to destroy. The only possible conclusion to be drawn from this is that the palestinians are, if anything, even more fanatical than the Nazis.
You say that the only way to stop the palestinians is to either destroy them completely or satisfy their needs. What do you believe they want? If all they wanted was a state, Arafat would have taken the deal that Barak offered him. It is obvious to everyone except the wilfully blnd that they still want to destroy all of Israel. I assume that you don’t believe that, because if you did there is no way you could, in good conscience, play the advocate for them as you do. What do YOU propose as a solution?
It is obvious that the Israeli policy of pre-emptive assassination of leading terrorists has been extremely effective. Since Rantisi and Yassin were dispatched to consort with their virgins, Hamas has been very quiet. Why? It’s because they know that if they show themselves they are dead men. Israel should expand and continue with this policy relentlessly.
As for cutting off their water and their electricity, sounds like a good idea. Let the Arabs worry about them.
Um Roman, I’m responding to Muffti on my pro-Palestinians remark. The point being that some people, including Palestinians and their supporters, justify violence on the basis of checkpoints.
Could anyone explain to me why writing the word “god” is evil?
Muffti: Of course there is no G*d> As your t-shirt attests, you KILLED HIM!
Bastard.
Oops. Are my Mormon roots showing?
Doh.
Yes, god can have typos.
Thank you, thank you! I’m hear till Monday. Try the veal.
Muffti used to think there was no God. He still thinks that, but if there is one, it’s Roman Levin.
Skipped everything after I started reading Ephraim’s post, so forgive me if this was discussed by someone else.
No, Ephraim, I’m not an agressive person. But put words in my mouth isn’t nice. Putting words in my mouth that are obviously not what I meant is fucking disgusting.
Israel can’t win not because the Palestinians are immoral. They have their own set of beliefs. Israel can’t win because it is impossible to destroy the wants of an entire people. Whether it is encouraged by corrupt strongmen or not, suicide bombing is done by palestinian civilians. They aren’t soldiers. They don’t need training. They just need some explosive and the will to die for a cause.
Israel doesn’t have that kind of people. Well, they do kinda, but unless you wan’t to hand over defense to the settler mothers who use their own babies as shields when they are demonstrating, I’d prefer the IDF.
Moreover, the only way to stop the entire people, short of satisfying its needs, is complete destruction. That isn’t going to happen either.
The palestinian belief system is very different from that of the West. I said that. But I’m not saying that they are inferior.
Raping the Palestinian people, as you seem to propose, will only make the matter worse. You can’t equate them with the Nazis – and I’m not even talking about ideoligy. The Nazi regime controlled the most populated state in Europe, that only two decades eariler was the most powerful industrial entity in the world. It had vast natural resources. Destroying those resources was among the things that stopped the war.
The Palestinians don’t have resources that we can take away. In fact, if we don’t help feed them and provide them with water and electricity, they might just starve. They don’t need a vast industrial machine supporting their cause. They aren’t looking to destroy Israel’s strategic assets. They are fighting in a manner that would seem alien to Nazi Germany.
They are already incredibly poor and suffer much. Making it worse won’t help.
Now,
Okay, how does destroying their house help. Saying that the deserve it isn’t quiet enough. Why should Zahal waste it’s resources bulldozing houses?
T_M, what the pro-palestinian activists think has nothing to do with the discussion. Stay on topic. Or don’t actually, seeing as even ck seems oddly eh… un-understanding.
And I’m not even talking aboust Josh that seems to think it dangerous to consider Palestinians as human.
Now, Josh, it’s like this. If you see Palestinians where you know very well that they shouldn’t be, shoot them. That’s why you are there, to guard whatever it is you’re guarding. If you see house and you know that the guy you killed came from it, how would destroying it reverse any damage the dead guy might have done?
I’ve heard many pro-Palestinian activists use the checkpoints and their impact as an excuse to justify Palestinian violence.
More about that when I do my review of the movie…Checkpoint.
Muffti tries to get out but they just drag him back in…
CK, comparing check points to house demolitions is entirely misleading. And you know it. Check points aren’t punitive: they are a way to increase security. House demolitions are punitive: they are designed to casue direct harm in retaliation. Read the above…the whole point is to punish the would-be bomber by punishing his family, so he knows that he’s causally responsible for the house being demolished.
Geez, ck, what is Muffti going to do with you? As for everyone suffering on account of the conflict, we can all agree to that. But not everyone has suffered as the result of punitive measures. And we both know there is a difference.
Let me try that again reformatted…
Well said, Ephraim.
ck, to respond to #36:
Palestinian prisonerrs are not POWs even though they were captured during wartime (even an undeclared one). From the conventions, they are awarded protection if they fulfil these conditions:
By hiding among the civilian population, not wearing a distinct uniform, concealing explosives, and indiscriminately attacking civilians, they have forfeited their POW protection.
Well said, Ephraim.
ck, to respond to #36:
Also if we are at war with Palestinians, then their prisoners ought to be treated like POWs and even the ones with “blood on their hands†ought ot be released at the cessation of hostilities. Didja think about that Ephraim?
Palestinian prisonerrs are not POWs even though they were captured during wartime (even an undeclared one). From the conventions, they are awarded protection if they fulfil these conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
By hiding among the civilian population, not wearing a distinct uniform, concealing explosives, and indiscriminately attacking civilians, they have forfeited their POW protection.
Muffti – the entire community does indeed suffer. Granted, those directly involved suffer more directly by having their houses blown up, but every member of Palestinian society suffers as a result of this idiotic and totally avoidable conflict. Every single one.
But according to your logic, check points would be wrong too. There’s no proof that checkpoints act as an effective bullwark against suicicide bombings. In fact the advent of check points also saw an increase in suicide bombings. Furthermore, the wasted time and humiliation waged upon Palestinians trying to cross through checkpoints probably adds to the resentment that fuels the desire of individuals to become suicide bombers. The same can be said about preventing Palestinians in the territories from working in Israel. I mean surely, not every single person crossing a checkpoint or trying to work in Israel is a terrorist! Thus that’s all collective punishment and morally repugnant! We should immediately knock down the walls and open up all the borders.
Yes that means that more Israelis will be killed by terrorist acts, but at least we won’t be violating any abstract notions of morality. I mean what are 1000s of lives and continued national viability when compared to pure, perfect and beautiful notions of morality!
Geez Muffti.
I am somewhat at a loss here. If I understand him correctly, Roman says that Israel cannot win this war because it is a Western country bound by Western values, whereas the enemy is Arab/Muslim/Asian, and therefore does not care about such Western things as morality and the rules of war. Do I understand you correctly? Just out of curiosity, is this some version of the “Yellow Peril” argument? If so, let me offer a toast: Long Live the Enlightened West, Damnation and Confusion to the Dark Barbarian Hordes of Asia! Hear, hear!
So, Roman, if Israel cannot win this war since it is bound by Western (or, should I say, “White European,” since the enemy is “Asian”) values and the enemy is not, what do you propose Israel should do? This is a rhetorical question, of course; it is clear that if you hold that Israel cannot win this war, her inevitable destruction, G-d forbid, is a foregone conclusion. Or do you believe that a wholesale retreat to the 1948 armistice lines and Israel’s acceptance of the palestinian “right” of return” will bring “peace”? You know, of course, that this will mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Also, are you saying, as you seem to be, that your relative would not have been attacked if Israel had not blown up a terrorist’s house? I am very sorry that your relative was attacked, and I thank G-d that he was not killed. But your position sounds disturbingly like a version of the “be quiet, don’t make trouble” argument. I hope that I misunderstand you.
Also, ck, you seem to agree with me that palestinian society is mobilized for war at least in the sense that homicide bombing is supported, encouraged, aided and abetted by all sectors of society. Yet, if understand you correctly, you object to the idea of Israel unapologetically pursuing a military solution to this problem, as would any other nation with even a lick of sense. The US went halfway around the world and destroyed a terrorist regime to avenge a single attack that, statistically, was much less serious than the cumulative attacks that Israel has borne since the beginning of the Oslo Terror War. Yet you seem to object to the idea that Israel should do the exact same thing to the terror regime that sits right on its very borders. Why is that? Is it because you believe that there is no military solution or that the cost would be too high, either in terms of dead palestinians or a loss of Jewish “morality”?
I think it is the latter, and in this I think you are takng an actively immoral position. How is it moral for Jews, and most especially a Jewish government of a Jewish state, to refrain from defending themselves, when they know this inacton will certainly lead to the death of their fellow Jews? Because it is somehow “immoral” to defend yourself from one who is sworn to your destruction? This makes no sense to me at all.
To achieve peace in Europe, the Allies pursued total war against the Nazis and in the process not only destroyed their army, they killed millions of civilians in bombing raids, punsihing Germany so severely that it surrendered unconditionally. They then occupied them until Nazism was so dead that it could never rise again. Yet no one accused the Allies of of forfeiting their morality. What ws the result? Germany is now one of the most peaceful and respected natons in the world. This status may be fraying a bit at the edges now, but 60 years of Germans NOT murdering Jews is nothing to be sneezed at.
Israel needs to pursue a similar policy against the palestinians: beat ther “dream” of a Judenrein “Palestine” out of them until they are ready for peace. Refraining from defending istelf from terrorist attack with all of the means at its disposal is not the moral thing for Israel to do. This weakness will only encourage the palestinians to be more violent and intransigent than they are now.
And, yes, a Review button would be nice.
Muffti likes the pic, though he would have preferred the one of him with the Jack Daniels drinking jesus. That guy was cool!
Say your dad kiilled someone that no one liked and in the process killed himself to. And say everyone was happy that the guy was dead. And say that you got a big cheque for having lost your dad from an organization that always wanted that guy dead.
Would that make it ok to demolish your house? Especially if the only thing you did to participate in the guy’s death was be your father’s son? In any case, the points you bring up make it seem rather arbitrary to demolish a house. Why not arrest a journalist every time it happens for writing a glorifying story? Why not destroy printing houses? Why not tax the entire community?
The obvious reason is because they didn’t commit the crime.
TM, why does muffti have to tell you what would be an effective deterrent in order to say that we should stop using what looks like an ineffective deterrent?
Muffti, Muffti, Muffti. Whatever shall I do with you.
Suicide bombing was effective in part because at the end of a successful mission, there was no one to interrogate and no one to punish. After a successful suicide bombing, the family of the bomber usually threw a party, in anticipation of the fat cheque they were going to receive. Suicide bombers are revered as heroes and martyrs. Posters extolling their bravery are hung everywhere. Palestinian media and the leadership that controls them glorified the suicide bomber ad nauseum. If ever there was a case for a society’s moral culpability for the act of an individual, suicide bombing by Palestinians is it.
And Palestinian society has suffered greatly for its intransigence. The moral issues you bring up are interesting of course, but nothing is as cut and dried as you present it. Hey… do you like the pic I added?
And Muffti takes us back to my comment #1 again…
Whatever. Muffti is sick of arguing about this. We all know that comparing this to a normal war is just nonsense. Kudos to Roman for pointing that out first. ck’s criticism was (as usual) not so well thought out 🙂
Anyhow, Muffti doesn’t think that he or Roman ever meant to say that hurting civilians was never justified. Of course it is sometimes. What Muffti and Roman are objecting to, and have been all along, was the notion that its morally ok to punish people who are only related to the criminal by family. If there was proof that they aided and abetted, it might be a different story. But it’s just wrong to blindly punish people whether or not they did anything wrong. If you wanna throw around half baked hebrew phrases, I think midah k’negged midah is the appropriate one.
Furthermore, there doesn’t seem to be any principled reason to pick house demolitions. Say we knew, without a doubt, that suicide bombing would drop 10% if we destroyed all the houses in the village the bomber came from, thereby leaving everyone homeless. Or if we simply imprisoned random people. Do you really think that would be justified? Are you really convinced that collective guilt works this way? And ck, do you really think we should congratulate ourselves for not engaging in massacres?
Anyhow, the larger point of the study was that the policy wasn’t achieving its desired ends. You can go ahead and be skeptical if you like. Hell, go do your own study and disprove it. But it seems clear to the IDF that the policy wasn’t effective. So at best we don’t really know if the policy is effective. Are you really willing to pursue a policy of blaming and punishing people who aren’t responsible just on the hope that it will deter?
Good Shabbos everyone.
I’m staying out of this one for now.
Oh f-ck, just one comment…
Roman,
I still think you’re deluded.
Sitting in my tank near Nahal Oz, two figures show up on the thermal-imager near the fence just before sunrise when the best attacks are done and you know know what? We choked, but more unfortunately, I choked. Instead of firing first and asking questions later, we hesitated too long. All that shit about hurting civilians makes you second guess the elementary soldier instincts, the military doctrine and the essential order to defend the border and other Jews. We fired, but too late, and no assholes were killed on my watch. BUT, since I probably pissed these guys off, there was another attempted attack at the same point only ten days later.
AND not any less important,
I agree that with Jewlicious winning all these prestigious awards lately, they should return the favour to the people who supported them and at least add a preview button. Would asking for an automatic ‘href’ inserter be pushing it to far?
This may be war, but not in the regular western way we know. There is no state to fight against.
It can be equated with policing because Israel controls the territory where these people live. These houses aren’t demolished by bombing from the air. The army brings bulldozers.
Those British keep popping up everywhere…
The policy of house demolition, questionable from a western moral perspective, at least presented a quid pro quo. All those contemplating and/or engaging in suicide bombing, or aiding and abetting in a suicide bombing knew that there would be a response from the authorities. Now Israel no longer has house demolition as an option. I suspect that has more to do with the PA’s decision to, at least for the moment, forego suicide bombing as an acceptable tactic, as well as the increased difficulty of successfully carrying out such a mission thanks to the security barrier and increased Israeli vigilance.
Muffti’s criticism is unusually not well thought out. When a suicide bomber completes his mission, the crime committed is not a police matter, best dealt with all the attendant legal niceties. Its an act of terrorism and war. Whenever one state, in war time, bombs another state, they do not launch legal proceedings to determine the guilt of all the potential victims. Granted, that’s kinda arbitrary and icky, but dude. It’s a war. You cannot conduct an effective war under the standards that you describe. Your rebuttal was refreshingly naive, if not outright guffaw inducing. You can do better muffti.
But before you go off and put together an indignant response, I am nonetheless pleased to see the end of this policy. It never sat well with me and the end of house demolitions is indicative to me of an improvement in the prospects for peace. I think house demolition served a purpose at one time and my most fervent hope is that it is no longer useful. What bothered me about it was that in the war/bombing scenario, detailed or even rudimentary investigations of guilt are impossible. In Israel’s situation such is not the case and yet home demolitions took place without even some form of rudimentary investigation. That never sat well with me.
By the way, just so you all know, punitive demolition of homes was not an invention of Israel’s. Punitive house demolitions are rooted in British military practices dating to the early twentieth century. During the British mandate period, house demolitions were introduced into the legal structure of Palestine in response to increasing resistance to British rule. Regulation 119 of the Defense Emergency Regulations of 1945 stated:
Just sayin’ is all. Anyhow, Good riddance DER 119.
I think I see our disagreement now.
You seem to be interested in exploring the question of the balance of demolitions to bombings. You care only about the lives being saved, and wish to maximize that number.
I believe that such study is impossible, and so the entire policy should be dropped – because you don’t know how many lives you save. You can’t.
From a completely factual point of view, for all we know demolitions might be causing more harm than benefit. Than what’s the point of continuing such a policy, even if it was morally spotless, which – I believe you’ll agree – it is far from being.
I would. But it’s so boring I’d rather beat my head against the wall with people who don’t seem to hear me than actually study.
Gotta pry myself away from this damned weblog.
Eh….
Nope. Doesn’t work.
That fact that it stopped one bomber doesn’t mean it didn’t cause two others to go a blow themselves up.
Precisely. We agree.
Reread what I wrote. Carefully.
Okay, I’ll say it one last time.
There isn’t any evidence of direct correlation between demolitioning houses and preventing terrorism.
How hard is that to understand?
That fact that it stopped one bomber doesn’t mean it didn’t cause two others to go a blow themselves up.
I’m not talking about the value of house vs. the value of lives. Fuck houses. I’m saying there isn’t any proof of demolitions actually improving the situation. None.
How hard can that be to understand?
Roman, you are not differentiating between revenge and deterrence.
The point is that if you have even one father who turns his son in before a bombing takes place because this policy of family home destruction exists, then your position could be argued as moral because you’ve saved lives and many critical injuries.
So then the question becomes, to put it crudely, at which point do those lives given up in that one bombing that is prevented become less important than the policy of house destruction? If you save 5 lives, is that worth 5 houses? 50 houses? 500 houses? How many destroyed houses generate a new bomber who kills more than would have been killed without the house destruction? 1 house? 5 houses? 100 houses? Is the trade-off worth it?
PS drop this and go study!
*cries out in pain*
What’s the use? No really, why talk if no one gives a flying fuck? Esspecially when I should be studying for my General Chemistry final.
Full disclosure: You may remember that guy who, the morning after the assasination of Sheikh Yassin, went into Tel Aviv and started swinging an axe. My brother in law got a swing in the head. Left a nice scar. That was about, oh, a month after he married my sister.
If getting hit by a bomber makes you want to demolish houses… well, let us just say you’re not being very smart.
“Oh shit, got hit by bomber! The bastard! Let’s punish his family unfairly, so that other bombers will feel sympathy towards us and like us”.
Anonymous, that is my point above when I ask what is the value of even a single life.
*Only* twenty bombers turned in? As a person who was seriously injured in a suicide bombing…twenty fewer bombings means that hundreds of people won’t have their lives ripped to shreds because of a madman. There were six people killed in the bombing I was injured in…”just” one bomber was involved. If someone had turned her in, six families would not be living in daily grief and scores of people living with permanent injuries (loss of limbs etc) would be healthy and happy today.
Would you be so cavalier if it were your daughter or your wife who lost a leg?
Oh, and by the way, New Zealand sounds absolutely amazing right about now.
I mean that you, nor I, can’t convince someone of something as deepseated as moral applicability over a blog’s comment parchment.
That’s good then. We may continue.
I’m not a rhetoric genius?
And no, that’s not what I meant by “complex.”
*Sees davidw’s post*
Bangs own head against keyboard, realizes it isn’t painful enough, goes to find a wall*
Ah, good morning.
The only reason it may be “unclear”, is because what we have here is a failure to communicate.
No, seriously. Israeli is a mostly western society fighting a mostly arab/muslim/asian society. You can’t really apply the same laws of convential warfare because the enemy (the palestinians/PLO) doesn’t regard the as laws (at most, as a pirate might say, as general guidelines).
This conflict is similar to that of the Americans in Vietnam in that the Israeli way of fighting cannot possibly bring victory. If you’ve read John Keegan’s “A History of Warfare” (wanted to link .com, but it seems to be down… odd), you know what I’m talking about.
The palestinians aren’t all mobilized for war. They aren’t the fucking Huns or Mongols. But they do view this war differently than the Jewish people of Israel. It is, in a sense, a fighting society, and Israel really isn’t. Already a lot of people are more and more reluctant to serve in combatant units of the IDF. Israel cannot win the war because it isn’t fighting another state. The only real way to “win” would be to kill all the palestinians, or transport them away. No Ephraim, that isn’t going to happen. And yes, that’s a good thing.
And Middle. Yes, it is complex. It is in fact so complex that Israel has no way of gauging the real effectivness of the demolition policy. Therefore, my last arguement (see no. 26) still stands. Unless of course by “complex” you mean: “these aren’t westerners, and the are annoying, and they did do pretty horrible things. Maybe that nice and pretty thing we call morality doesn’t apply here, because, well, I don’t feel like acting upon it”. Then we don’t really have any reason to speak of this issue anymore. I’m not a rhetoric genius, and neither are you.
And for gods’ sake, will someone please get a preview button in here?
I think the house demolition policy was a response to the payments given to suicide bombers’ families. If the families are going to accept $25000 (or whatever money they are receiving now from various “charities”) for their kids blowing themselves up in attacking Israel, they are very much morally complicit in the attacks.
The biggest problem you face in dealing with suicide bombers, is that traditional deterents just don’t work. If you commit a crime, you go to jail (or worse). Even M.A.D. worked in the cold war because neither side wanted to annihilate the other. But when you’re dealing with someone who is ready and willing to blow themselves up (and considers it a good thing), all of that goes out the window. There has to be consequences for their actions, and you can’t punish the individual because they’re already dead.
With the house demolitions, Israel sent a very clear message to the terrorists and their families: If you bomb us, we will destroy your family’s house. Or, more to the point: “if you bomb us, you are in effect destroying your family’s house.”
Oh, and I don’t have a problem with collective punishment when the society brainwashes kids from birth, glorifies bombers as “martyrs”, builds children’s museums glorifying bombings, demonizing Jews, etc. As long as the society as a whole isn’t willing to solve their problems, they’re opening themselves to be collectively punished. If there were no bombings, no attacks… if they really wanted peace and made real efforts to achieve that peace, there would be no need for (and would be no) collective punishment.
Muffti, it is not straightforward. It is complex. It is a function of war and it is a function of saving lives. The question is whether it’s moral or not and I’m afraid it’s not clear.
ck, you are as mixed up as one could be on this issue. And it’s not like I think you are mixed up on much, so it’s downright surprising. The institutions of one’s home does not apply because, well, once you are dead it is no longer your home. Because you are dead. And importing assumptions about what the family knew about in advance of the bombing is just that, importing assumptions. The policy wasn’t to have an investigation as to whether or not the family was complicit in the bombing; the policy was to threaten a family so as to provide a reason not to carry out terrorist attacks. Muffti addressed this a few times so he doesn’t see why you keep bringing it up. In any case, if you think that people are complicit in a crime, try them in court just like you would try anyone else who aids and abets, or harbour, criminals. That’s not what is being done in these cases: there is no criminal justice being carried out. It is straightforward retribution and it’s wrong.
Also if we are at war with Palestinians, then their prisoners ought to be treated like POWs and even the ones with “blood on their hands” ought ot be released at the cessation of hostilities. Didja think about that Ephraim?
Well, Ephraim, we’re not King Hussein. We have this morality thing we have to deal with that seems to be more important to us than it is to the Hashemite family.
The points that are germane that muffti has yet to address are aS follows:
We are in state of quasi-warfare. It’s the sort of conflict that does not lend itself to police actions. For instance, if the enemy has a base from which it launches attacks, we do not hesitate to bomb the base because we may hurt the otherwise innocent cleaning staff. Of course one may argue that homes do not correspond to the example I cited and yes, individual homes do not indeed fit in this. However, the institution of one’s home does apply.
Palestinian society and Palestinian families, that harbour and actively encourage suicide bombers ARE MORALLY CULPABLE IN THE CRIMES COMMITTED BY THOSE SUICIDE BOMBERS. Consequently they are subject to reasonable punishment.
We are all of course duly horrified by the notion of collective punishment. How many times have we read stories about partisans attacking Nazis and Nazis then simply going to the village from which the partisans may or may not have originated or operated from and simply executing 20 villagers for every German killed.
The case here is totally not the same. Palestinian media, including media aimed at small children, extoll the virtues of suicide bombing. Posters depicting suicide bombers as heroes hang everywhere, indoors and outdoors. The families of suicide bombers are hailed and honored for their sacrifice. All this happens openly and is not some new revelation. The few individuals who have criticized suicide bombing demonstrate that it is in fact possible to resist the encouragement of suicide bombing as a legitimate weapon in the struggle against the Israelis, and still live.
Well, if Hussein killed more than 3,000, then so much the better. Have you noticed that since he did so, PLO terrorists have not bothered Jordan? They know that they will be killed mercilessly if they do, and so, like sensible people, they do not risk it. The palestinians attack Israel because they know that the Jews will stupidly argue about the right and wrongs of destroying the house of a terrorist instead of avenging the murder of their citizens.
In what way is palestinian society not mobilized for war?
Oy Ephraim, you have some errors in there. Hussein killed more than 3000, for example.
More important, you are wrong to say that their entire society is mobilized for war.
Grandmufti is wrong when he says it is not justified to punish someone for a crime if he or she is not responsible for that crime.
He is wrong because homicide bombing is not a crime, it is an act of war. People err gravely in thinking that the actions of Arab terrorists are “crimes” that can be dealt with by a police force which must obey all of the civilized rules of Western democracies. These are not crimes; they are military attacks. It does not matter that the palestinians do not have tanks, planes or missiles. Anyone with eyes to see can tell that all of palestinian society is mobilized for genocide against the Jews. As such, the entire society is complicit and laible to punishment. It does not matter that Abbas or anyone else says that he is dedicated to a peaceful solution. It is obvious to everyone except the wllfully blind that he is lying through his teeth.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept that the PA is actually dedicated to a peaceful solution, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hizb’allah et al have said just as plainly that they are not. Thet are, therefore, fair game.
By taking the wanton murder of Jews lying down, Israel proves to the Arabs that Jews can be murdered with impunity. This invites continuing attacks.
I do not think that blowing up the hoses of terrorists is the right approach. Instead, I support what I call R&D: Re-Occupation and De-Nazificaton. Israel should immediately invade the PA controlled areas, engage the terrorists in battle, kill as many of them as possible, drive out the rest, and totally destroy the PA, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. root and branch. Let us cal it Black September Redux, in honor of the successful Jordanian campaign against the PLO in 1970. In response to PLO provocations, King Hussein launced an all-out attack on the PLO, killed about 3,000 of their fighters, and drove the rest of them out. If Hussein can do it, so can Israel.
Muffti, the commission may be right and may be wrong. Commissions have been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future. It’s all in the details…I would love to see that report.
Roman, you live in New Zealand?
*TM runs away from the hordes of murderous Jews, praying they won’t destroy his home with a D9*
Roman, ‘amen’. You and TM are some reasonable people in general. ck, you are a total
fucking psychomoral dullard.Let’s see:
Sure. Muffti is all for killing terrorists before they manage to kill us. If someone comes strapped with a bomb and stopping him requires killing him, go for it. But what does that have to do with threatening his family? Collective punishment? Punishment of those who didn’t commit the crime? The extension is misleading at best.
As for the rest, Roman said it better than I could. It’s just plain wrong to punish those not responsible for a crime, even if you announce you are going to do it in advance, pace TM. And all this talk about the end justifying the means is complete bullshit. We have a commission that says that it hasn’t provided deterence and you have, well, total speculations and hopeful wishes. If the ends justify the means, you may as well just go and shoot every arab who may be a terrorist and get it over with. At least that would be effective.
B’Eretz zavat halav u devash.
Roman, where are you located?
Forgive me for any weird wording that may appear the above post. It is way past my bed-time.
Saying that it’s okay to treat some of the other people badly because some of them treated some of our people badly is morally… problematic.
And the thing is, ck, even if the lives > homes unequality was viable, you don’t know if it will actually help.
Now let’s see, we can punish them by something which is morally disgusting, and it may help, may do nothing, or may make things worse.
We can not punish them by such means and that may help, do nothing, or worsen things.
Unless you are absolutely (or – at least – reasonably) sure that the punishment is effective in preventing further bad things, there’s isn’t a reason to commit to that punishment policy.
We seem to agree that the demolitions may not be effective. What we don’t agree on is whether, knowing very little about the effects of what we are doing, we should continue.
Things are just not as murky to me as they are to T_M. And I am not, as Muffti implies, a moral dullard either. Israel is in a fight for its life and continued viability. In that respect, the rules have not changed much since 1948.
I hope the new accords in Sharm al Sheikh bear real fruit and we can move on and end the cycle of violence once and for all. But we’ve been down that road before – and Marwan Barghouthi believes the uprising will continue in the West Bank after the Gaza pullout (and why not? It works!). So I didn’t even blog about it. I’ll wait and see if Mahmoud Abbas lasts at all.
The point is that one can’t make in vacuo moral judgements as Muffti seems wont to do. In my book, one has a moral obligation to save one’s own life in the face of another who wants to kill him. That’s Judaism’s rodeph thing: if someone comes to kill you, you must kill him first, even if such a thing is distasteful to you. Jews are not meant to be pacifists or Christians who turn the other cheek. We crave and idealize peace, but we’re not meant to be suicidal pushovers either.
Our enemies pretty much set the rules from day one of the conflict. Any Jewish settlement that fell into Arab hands did not suffer from unfair treatment. Jewish settlements in Arab hands did not suffer from discriminatory policies or uneven application of International humanitarian law. Nope. Any Jewish settlement that fell into Arab hands was simply wiped off the face of the earth.
These include Beit Ha’arava, on the shore of the Dead Sea and Atarot and Neve Ya’akov, north of Jerusalem; Kfar Darom, Yad Mordechai and Nitzanim, which were on the route of the invading Egyptian army; the four Etzion settlements south of Jerusalem (the residents of Kibbutz Kfar Etzion were massacred, the survivors of the other settlements were sent into captivity); the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem that surrendered to the besieging forces of the Trans-Jordanian Arab legion; Mishmar Hayarden, which was conquered by Syrian forces. Wherever an Arab army conquered a Jewish settlement, this settlement ceased to exist. The Arab ethnic cleansing was complete – not one Jewish settlement remained in Arab-controlled areas.
Thems the rules of our engagement. In light of that, we’ve certainly acted with restraint. And now, after that study, the Minister of Defense has ordered an end to home demolitions. Cool. Let’s hope the Palestinians go with the momentum and get their economy and lives in order, while not doing anything that would imperil their homes. Because if the chooice is between 60 Israeli lives and 270 Palestinian homes, moral dullard that I am, I’ll take the lives.
Hopefully we won’t have to go there again.
Muffti, to your second point, I reply that announcing the consequences and consistently following up does give fair warning.
The issue of collective punishment is one where we agree. Where we might disagree is whether it applies here.
What is one life worth? If by creating this rule – whereby the home of a suicide bomber, even if others are living in it and he then dies, is forfeit – you prevent a bombing that kills your civilians, is that collective punishment or a defensive act in a war? If people shoot at your soldiers or civilians from a home and you realize the only way to prevent future attacks is to remove that home – even if those who shot were merely visiting for the occasion but liable to return – is that collective punishment or a defensive act of war? If people are digging smuggling tunnels and are able to bring over arms that are used against civilians and soldiers in deadly attacks, is removing the homes in the vicinity of the tunnels in order to prevent this collective punishment or a defensive act in a war?
I think the last example is the most difficult to answer, but the first two seem far more on target.
I ask these questions not because I fully agree with home demolitions. In truth, I have grave doubts about targeted killings as well since innocent bystanders are injured and killed sometimes. However, I understand the rationale of both in a way that challenges the notion of collective punishment or revenge attacks. I simply don’t see this matter as one that is clear. It’s murky to me.
Well, uh, yes.
Muffti recognizes Josh’s point. You’re right. What we should really do is burn down the entire village any suicide bomber comes from. And anyone who runs out of the town, we should shoot on site. And we should probably institute torturing of anyone related to the suicide bomber no matter how remote. We wouldn’t want to roll over and die, after all! (to quote Homer, ‘if you can’t tell, I’m being sarcastic!)
Roman, mufti
so you’re saying that we should just roll over and die?
The checkpoints are a great detterent, but by your logic they also cause incitement and who can ignore the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian pregnant women who had stillborns AND also died from not receiving proper medical attention because of those damn checkpoints.
The ‘racial profiling’ at the airport, bus stations, supermarkets, movie theatres, and buses also might deter some terrorists, but hell, it probably also incites(d) many more to carry out vengeance attacks.
To win a war/battle, you don’t have to annihilate the enemy, you merely have to make it believe that they can’t beat you so they give up. The Arabs have time and time again been shown that Israel refuses to win the war, and along with this dangerous retreat plan, and I’m sure everyone can do the math:
They won the war.
They sacrificed over two thousdands martyrs and ended up making us retreat from acres and acres of land AND are getting more and more ‘rehab’ money from ‘western’ donors.
Let that sink in a bit: They won the war. It doesn’t matter that we gave up. They won, and we let them.
Muffti is finally convinced there is an issue on which he and TM disagree. If there has been any moral progress made over the last 2000 years it is presumably partly that we don’t hold groups responsible for the actions of some of it’s members. This follows directly if you think that you can only be (justly) punished for what you are responsible. You aren’t responsible for the suicide bomber, he is. Thus, you aren’t justly punished for his activities.
The larger point is just announcing a consequence doesn’t make it just to follow through on that consequence. If Muffti told you that he would kill your children if you didn’t start believing in God, presumably if you didn’t you wouldn’t thereby attain moral responsibility for my killing your children. This reminds Muffti a lot of the anti-marijuana campaign in the states, where kids are told that weed is harmful to them since they can get arrested for it.
Oh, I hear Muffti loud and clear about the problematic use of certain deterrents. But I wonder how this committee judged this particular one. As an example, other than the bombings that were prevented, one wonders whether house demolitions led to a greater sense of fatigue and war weariness among the Palestinians. Perhaps Abbas is taking certain unArafatish steps because of this fatigue?
By the way, I’m not sure I agree with the issue of whether these demolitions are immoral. Any bomber knows in advance that this will be a penalty. Sure, he is dead, but his family will pay a price for his actions. As such, the immorality is not necessarily Israel’s since it had given fair warning to the perpetrator.
I’d really like to read this entire report.
BTW, I hear there’s this new high-tech thingy called the preview button. Those damn kids.
Here’s the link. Wow, we make actually have a chance to make this country work.
Of course, this is all part of the ongoing cease-fire thingy with the PLO.
So what he’s actually saying is that as long as there no bombings, there’s no use demolitioning house of bombers, but if they start blowing up again, we’ll probably start bulldozing those nice little cottages.
Of course, he may not actually mean what I just said, but it’s pretty clear that he’s leaving the IDF a loophole.
So, legally, nothing is changed, but this is a refreshing change of attitude.
And Middle, I believe Muffti’s point is that the deterrent may have side-effects which are worse that what it is trying to deter.
Muffti appologizes to T_M. Muffti doesn’t know what an effective deterent is per se. Presumably it is one that prevents more damage than would have occurred otherwise (i.e. had the policy been in place) overall. The Nazi use of the gestapo seems to have been an effective use of deterrence against criticism (i.e. the fear of having your family shot). An even tougher question is whether or not there are any forms of deterrence that aren’t grossly immoral. Muffti isn’t sure. And Muffti totally agrees with Roman: one of the points of the study was precisely to suggest that the policy yielded a net loss.
Just saw this: Defense Minister Mofaz adopts recommendation calling to halt demolition of homes belonging to terrorists` families (Haaretz)
Muffti, with respect to #10, you seem to ignore the impact of the deterrent upon those who are, well, deterred.
You still haven’t answered my question in #1. But I forgive you, it’s a tough one.
What Muffti said. Those ONE HUNDRED LIVES that were saved are all well and good, but who’s to say that it didn’t cause other people to blow themselves up – causing, say, a hundred Jewish casualties, and gods know how many Palestinian ones – keeping the ballance, except for those twenty demolished houses.
Muffti agrees with moral dullard if you restrict yourself to those numbers. But the point of the commission was that you have to balance those numbers against other ones, like how many lives were lost as a result of the policy.
Furthermore, we should note that not all suicide bombings are successful. We are assuming that the 20 or so turned in bombers would have succeeded. To really get a grip on the numbers, we would have to know the average rate of stopping the would-be bombers.
Muffti agrees with ck that not all factors were taken into account. Of course, this is true of every and any study: there are too many possible confounding factors so you have to make reasonable assumptions. Muffti will give the probe the benefit of the doubt on this one. In any case, he is intrigued by your argument:
Well, Muffti supposes that this is a relevant factor, but it still seems immoral to carry out punitive measures on people for failing to be good samaritans. In particular, given the brutal treatment of collaborationists of any stripe, it seems that ones moral duty to tell can be mitigated by the desire to live, have one family live etc. Anyhow, the measures were carried out without investigation into the prior knowledge of the family because if the knowledge of the family was relevant, the would-be suicide bombers wouldn’t tell their families and thereby prevent the measures from occurring.
Finally, Muffti isn’t sure what ck is objecting to vis a vis the point of deterrence. It’s a classic problem in game theory to try to figure out how deterrence works. Say Muffti’s family threatens to kill your family if you kill Muffti, in order to deter you. Say that Muffti’s family has no interest in killing your family. Then you kill the Muff. Well, the goal of deterrence is to keep you from doing the act. Once its done, the deterrence has failed and thus has outlived its point. So the only reason to carry out the threatened punishment (other than vengeance, which I think we can all agree is a bad reason) is to let others know that you are serious about the threat: you will carry it out even if it can’t help in the particular case. (i.e. imagine ever possible suicide bomber did his thing in one day so there were none left (and none more could ever come about). Would there be any point in demolishing all their families houses given that it could no longer act as a deterrent to anyone? No.)
Twenty cases, huh? Times what, on average 5 innocent lives?
That’s ONE HUNDRED lives saved.
Sounds like an excellent policy to me.
Well, no one can say for sure if the demolitions were a direct cause. Even coming close to knowing such a thing will take much more work than a brief statistical survey of the information availble.
As to things that are somewhat effective – cutting off some one’s arm because he shoplifted a candy bar will obviously lower the stealing of candy bars rate.
Now, don’t anyone dare say I’m comparing mass murder to stealing candy. What I’m saying is that sometimes the deterrent causes more trouble than the thing it’s supposed to deter.
Roman Collective punishment is never very effective, esspcially not in this case.
Okay, not very effective, just merely somewhat effective.
I wonder if that mention that ‘violence’ picked up after house demolitions started was meant to imply that the house demolitions incited, or that when the house demolitions started there were other factors causing the Palestinians to go kill Jews?
I should have said I was reffering to Muffti’s “good riddance”. Ain’t out of the woods just yet.
I guess we’ll have to see, eh Roman? One can hardly say that this commission approved anything.
Oh, and the fact that a commision recommends something doesn’t mean that any-one will actually heed it. In Israel, as far as I’ve seen, such commisions are set up to justify a policy. If they do, jolly good then. If they don’t – well, they don’t understand realpolitik anyway, those damn ivory tower pointy hats.
Haven’t read the report, but saying that the house demolitions may have deterred some terrorists is useless when it was just as likely to xcause other terrorists to blow themselves up.
Collective punishment is never very effective, esspcially not in this case. These terrorists believe they will be made Holy Men just for blowing up and killing some Yahud. Do you think real-world harshness can actually infulence such people?
Muffti wrote: Like all cases of deterrence, once the act is done, the punitive measures are useless and only undertaken to let others know that you are serious about the policy
What are you talking about? Let me get this right: Once the act is done (suicide bombing) the punitive measures (home demolition) are useless and only undertaken to let others know that you are serious about the policy (demolishing homes of suicide bombers).
The policy is aimed at deterring suicide bombers so that they know that should they undertake their mission, there will be real world consequences to their families. The policy is also aimed at families of suicide bombers who, if they know or suspect that one of their members is about to undertake a mission, can turn him or her in and thus prevent retribution.
During the course of the intifada, 270 homes were demolished. You correctly note that 20 potential suicide bombers were turned in by their families. So we know that about 40-60 lives were saved just on that basis alone (not including the lives of the 20 suicide bombers). Also, the study does not take into account cases where suicide bombers were merely dissuaded from undertaking their missions by family members concerned with retributions.
We also need to factor in the number of potential suicide bombers who declined to undertake missions, aborted them prior to their execution or even get involved because of the fear of retributions.
From a moral perspective, given the traditional closeness of Palestinian families, the presumption of the policy was that it was unlikely that a suicide mission would be undertaken without family members knowing about it. To whatever extent they did know about it, don’t they share some of the moral culpability if they do not actively prevent or dissuade the attack?
Anyhow, despite what I’ve just written, I have always been uncomfortable with home demolition. There is no indication that an investigation was undertaken to determine the family’s culpability. Of course it’s easy for me to be uncomfortable from the safety of my Canadian moral high ground.
What is truly noteworthy about this story is the fact that the study was commissioned by the IDF and the results were not a rubber stamp approval and justification for a longstanding policy. I have yet to hear about similar investigations by the PA, Hamas, Islamic Jihad or even Syria and Iran. Kol hakavod to the IDF for refuting, once again, the notion that Israelis are amoral bloodthirsty killers desirous of the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
Just out of curiosity, what is an effective deterrent?