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.