Israel steps up home demolitions to punish Palestinian attackers

[pbel]

Even paying with his-own blood and death did not satisfy the Israeli Authorities as enough punishment for his suicidal attack, Israel still needed more blood in the form of demolishing his innocent families home. No trial just revenge, revenge that never heals the pain for either Jew or Muslim...End the occupation.


Israel steps up home demolitions to punish Palestinian attackers
Israel steps up home demolitions to punish Palestinian attackers


The inside track on Washington politics.

Be the first to know about new stories from PowerPost. Sign up to follow, and we’ll e-mail you free updates as they’re published.
You’ll receive free e-mail news updates each time a new story is published.
You’re all set!
Sign up
*Invalid email address

Got it
Got it

.hideText{position:absolute;left:-10000px}
Resize Text
Comments 202
JERUSALEM — On Oct. 13, Ala’a Abu Jamal, a Palestinian Israeli employed by Israel’s national telephone company, rammed his company car into a Jerusalem bus stop, got out and stabbed to death a 60-year-old rabbi. Abu Jamal was shot dead at the scene.

A week earlier, Israeli military forces blew up the home of Abu Jamal’s neighbor and cousin, Ghassan, who, with another relative, had attacked a Jerusalem synagogue in November 2014, killing six Israelis.

Abu Jamal, a 33-year-old father of three, tried to stop the soldiers from destroying his cousin’s home but instead was beaten and humiliated, said his father, Daoud.

“They broke his ribs and bruised him badly,” he said. “He took sick leave from work and that was when he decided to carry out the attack.”

Abu Jamal’s explanation for his son’s violent act challenges a recently revived Israeli government policy of demolishing the homes of Palestinian assailants to deter future attacks.


[Israelis are calling attacks a ‘new kind of Palestinian terrorism’]

More than three months of violent assaults by Palestinians against Israelis show no signs of abating. Twenty-four Israelis have been killed; more than 140 Palestinians have been killed carrying out attacks or were shot by Israeli forces during clashes.

Now, Israel appears to be stepping up its punitive response by fast-tracking the demolition of homes where the attackers lived. In the past two weeks, three Palestinian homes in Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank have been destroyed by the military. Many more have been

 

[Jackson]

I don't blame the Israelis. Perhaps the terrorists will think twice if their family will be homeless.

 

[Roudy]

Thanks for the good news!

 

[Kondor3]

Don't want your family's home demolished?

Don't launch a suicide attack upon the Israelis.

Simple.

Elegantly conveyed.

Great fun, and adding another nugget to Israeli-controlled territory, as part of the Reconquista.

Was there anything else?

Next slide, please.

 

[Shusha]

I will say that I find this practice problematic. And it feeds the incitement and the feeling of victimhood.

But then again, having a hostile population is also problematic.

 

[Boston1]

The Geneva conventions are extremely clear on this one. Combatants are not refugees, nor is anyone suspected of assisting in any way combatants. And under the Geneva conventions it is perfectly legal to deport combatants to either a neutral third country, or to their nation of origin, in this case Jordan

 

[Indeependent]

The Geneva conventions are extremely clear on this one. Combatants are not refugees, nor is anyone suspected of assisting in any way combatants. And under the Geneva conventions it is perfectly legal to deport combatants to either a neutral third country, or to their nation of origin, in this case Jordan

Don't worry, Tinmore has a document on his wall from the Holy Roman Empire that contradicts the Geneva conventions.

 

[Challenger]

The Geneva conventions are extremely clear on this one...

Yup, article 33, part III, Geneva IV. Look it up.

 

[Boston1]

LOL

You are assuming a lot

Quote

• 
  ARTICLE 33 [ Link ]
  
  No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
  Pillage is prohibited.
  Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]End Quote

Its reasonable to suspect families of helping their terrorist family member when that family member is from childhood trained to be a terrorists. For instance, family members ( parents ) of a terrorist child who is or has actively participating in the summer camp terrorist program is assisting in terrorism against the state. [/FONT]

IV geneva convention
Quote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

In which case those family members lose their protected status as well as their descendants.

 

[pbel]

The Geneva conventions are extremely clear on this one. Combatants are not refugees, nor is anyone suspected of assisting in any way combatants. And under the Geneva conventions it is perfectly legal to deport combatants to either a neutral third country, or to their nation of origin, in this case Jordan

The Boston Finagler is at it again, Finagling that innocent civilians are combatants.

1. com·bat·ant
   [kəmˈbatnt, ˈkämbədənt]
   
   NOUN
   1. a person or nation engaged in fighting during a war.
      synonyms: fighter · soldier · serviceman · servicewoman · warrior ·
      [more]
      trooper
      • a person engaged in conflict or competition with another.
        synonyms: contender · adversary · opponent · competitor ·
        [more]
        challenger · rival
   
   ORIGIN
   late Middle English (as an adjective used in heraldry to describe two lions facing one another with raised forepaws): from Old French, present participle of combatre ‘to fight’ (see combat).
   
   RELATED FORMS
   combatants (plural noun)
   
   Translate combatant to
   
   No translation found.
   
   Powered by Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press
   Translations, word origin, and more definitions

 

[Challenger]

LOL

You are assuming a lot

Quote

• 
  ARTICLE 33 [ Link ]
  
  No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
  Pillage is prohibited.
  Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

[FONT=Arial, sans-serif]End Quote

Its reasonable to suspect families of helping their terrorist family member when that family member is from childhood trained to be a terrorists. For instance, family members ( parents ) of a terrorist child who is or has actively participating in the summer camp terrorist program is assisting in terrorism against the state. [/FONT]

IV geneva convention
Quote

• Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
• Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

End Quote

In which case those family members lose their protected status as well as their descendants.

...an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges...

...an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur...

The convention says nothing about family or descendants being punished, in fact quite the opposite, read article 33 again.

Curiously when the British carried out house demolitions against families of convicted Jewish terrorists, no lesser a person than Ben Gurion railed against such treatment accusing the British of behaving like Nazis...well if the cap fits...IDF = SS

 

[Boston1]

So what your really saying minus the nonsensical protestations is that home demolitions are a common means of deterrent. Interesting

But it does look like you have given up on your claim that terrorists are somehow protected persons, thats good, I think we're making progress.

 

[Boston1]

You might want to check precedence in international law on that suspicion of collusion thing and just what the implications are when persons knowingly assist in any actions against a state either in war time or in peace time. The geneva conventions clearly state that protected persons who engage in such activities forfeit their protected status.

See
Ex-Auschwitz medic, 95, to stand trial on February 29

Quote
Hubert Zafke was a medical orderly at the camp from August 15, 1944 to September 14, 1944. During this time, 14 trains carrying prisoners -- including the teenage diarist Anne Frank -- arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau where many would eventually be killed in the gas chambers.
Ahead of proceedings due to begin February 29, prosecutors said Zafke was "aware of the purpose of the Birkenau camp as an extermination camp" as well as of its structure.
"Given his awareness, the accused lent support to the organisation of the camp and was thereby both involved in and advanced the extermination," said prosecutors in an earlier statement as they charged Zafke for complicity in the "cruel and insidious killings of at least 3,681" people.
End Quote

So as can very easily seen even medical personal can lose their protected status and be treated as a combatant. The Geneva conventions clearly also define medical personal as protected persons. Here we have a case where the suspect didn't actively participate in the crime, however knew it existed and lent aid by virtue of his lending support to the organization involved.

Israel can very easily claim that the families of terrorists lent aid through their support.

Another interesting example would be those who voted for Hamas. Which is a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of the state. The precedent above could be used to declare all who support Hamas as having forfeited their rights as protected persons.

 

[RoccoR]

Challenger, et al,

I thought that someone would eventually bring this up. I have no doubt that during the course of a conflict (either NIAC or IAC) that has lasted the better part of seven decades, and has been (in relation to the hostilities between the Jewish Immigrant and the Hostile Arab Palestinians) more than a century --- going back the the 1929 Riots and the first attacks by the Palestinians Black Hand --- that both sides have stepped outside the acceptable limits of Humanitarian and/or Human Rights Law; as it was applicable at various times.

The Report notes that the fight against terrorism has led to a re-examination of the balance between state security and individual protections and that, in the ICRC's view, the overriding legal and moral challenge facing the international community today is to find ways of dealing with new forms of violence while preserving existing standards of protection provided for by international law.
SOURCE: ICRC IHL and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts
​

The Geneva conventions are extremely clear on this one...

Yup, article 33, part III, Geneva IV. Look it up.

(REFERENCES)

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, COLLECTIVE PENALTIES, PILLAGE, REPRISALS
ARTICLE 33 [ Link ]

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.​

Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907.
ARTICLE 28 [Link]

The pillage of a town or place, even when taken by assault, is prohibited.​

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.
PROHIBITED DESTRUCTION
ARTICLE 53

Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
​

The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the notion of military necessity
Annex 1 Article XX — Military necessity – general definition

1. For the purpose of this instrument, military necessity represents an urgent situation obliging a military commander to take measures indispensable for forcing as quickly as possible the complete surrender of the enemy by means :

(a) indispensable for obtaining the military objectives which are lawful in accordance with the generally recognized principles of international humanitarian law, both of treaty and customary nature, such as the distinction between combatants and non-combatants, proportionality and the prohibition of reprisals against protected categories of persons and objects, and

(b) which are limited as to the time, purpose and object of military operations.
​

2. The application of the concept of military necessity shall be judged on the base of two conditions :

(a) no other feasible alternative was available at the moment of the conduct of hostilities, and

(b) the assessment of the situation by a commander was made from all sources reasonably available to him/her at the moment of the conduct of hostilities.
​

(COMMENT)

There is no group of persons involved in international armed conflict (NIAC or IAC) who are outside any International Humanitarian Law (IHL) protection. The ISRC says there is no "gap" in IHL coverage between the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions; a group of "unprivileged belligerents." IHL provides that "combatants cannot suffer penal consequences for direct participation in hostilities." Having said that IHL does not prohibit civilians (Irregular forces, Jihadists, terrorists, insurgents, and resistance members, etc) from fighting for their country, but lack of prisoner of war status and, among other things, "not protected from prosecution under the applicable domestic laws upon capture." Direct participation in hostilities by civilians, it should be noted, is not a war crime; but neither is it sanctioned and can be persecuted by the proper authorities. Having no immunity from domestic penal prosecution, civilians who take a direct part in hostilities lose immunity from attack during the period of direct participation.

While incarcerated, these civilians (Irregular forces, Jihadists, terrorists, insurgents, and resistance members, etc)
can be considered as having forfeited certain rights and privileges provided for in the Fourth Geneva Convention within the limits set down by Article 5 of the Geneva Convention and customary international law.

IHL is law to protect --- while military necessity are concepts that win confrontation. They are diametrically opposing each other. The Israelis know that if they impose a penalty on Hostile Arab Palestinians, that have the exact opposite effect to the various Arab sponsors from giving monetary assistance and rewards to the family of the terrorist. They are two-sides to the same coin; one giveth and one taketh away.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[pbel]

You might want to check precedence in international law on that suspicion of collusion thing and just what the implications are when persons knowingly assist in any actions against a state either in war time or in peace time. The geneva conventions clearly state that protected persons who engage in such activities forfeit their protected status.

See
Ex-Auschwitz medic, 95, to stand trial on February 29

Quote
Hubert Zafke was a medical orderly at the camp from August 15, 1944 to September 14, 1944. During this time, 14 trains carrying prisoners -- including the teenage diarist Anne Frank -- arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau where many would eventually be killed in the gas chambers.
Ahead of proceedings due to begin February 29, prosecutors said Zafke was "aware of the purpose of the Birkenau camp as an extermination camp" as well as of its structure.
"Given his awareness, the accused lent support to the organisation of the camp and was thereby both involved in and advanced the extermination," said prosecutors in an earlier statement as they charged Zafke for complicity in the "cruel and insidious killings of at least 3,681" people.
End Quote

So as can very easily seen even medical personal can lose their protected status and be treated as a combatant. The Geneva conventions clearly also define medical personal as protected persons. Here we have a case where the suspect didn't actively participate in the crime, however knew it existed and lent aid by virtue of his lending support to the organization involved.

Israel can very easily claim that the families of terrorists lent aid through their support.

Another interesting example would be those who voted for Hamas. Which is a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of the state. The precedent above could be used to declare all who support Hamas as having forfeited their rights as protected persons.

A lot of words, a true Finagler's weapon. Simply put, if some is suspected of collusion you have a trial, before you punish.

Get it?

 

[RoccoR]

pbel, et al,

Is that exactly how it works. Is it all subject to Article 68 of the Geneva Convention?

A lot of words, a true Finagler's weapon. Simply put, if some is suspected of collusion you have a trial, before you punish.

Get it?

(COMMENT)

Are the laws governing this process the same in every Arab Country?
Are the laws governing this process the same in every Occupied Region?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MJB12741]

It's about time Israel gets tough on Palestinian terrorists & thier families who shelter them. Enough of Israel's damn Zionist agenda of peace offerings' security fence & land concessions to placate demands of the Palestinian squatters. Israel should learn from Jordan how to establish a lasting peace from Palestinians. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

 

[pbel]

pbel, et al,

Is that exactly how it works. Is it all subject to Article 68 of the Geneva Convention?

A lot of words, a true Finagler's weapon. Simply put, if some is suspected of collusion you have a trial, before you punish.

Get it?

(COMMENT)

Are the laws governing this process the same in every Arab Country?
Are the laws governing this process the same in every Occupied Region?

Most Respectfully,
R

Well, your brief post was enlightening, you heed my finagling accusations.

Human Justice needs no laws. We all know what is right and wrong no matter what the Culture or Nation.

 

[Challenger]

But it does look like you have given up on your claim that terrorists are somehow protected persons,

When did I ever make that claim, remind me?

 

[Challenger]

So what your really saying minus the nonsensical protestations is that home demolitions are a common means of deterrent. Interesting

No I'm not. Home demolitions didn't work as a deterrent on the Zionist terrorists then and they don't work on Palestinian Resistance fighters today. What the British did then was illegal as what the Zionists are doing today.