The Qassam rocket as collective punishment

[oberliner]

Imagine a situation in which thousands and thousands of people, many of them children and the elderly, are plunged into a situation in which they must fear for their lives day in and day out, their livelihoods crippled, their schools and even pre-schools under siege. Entire communities are trapped, paralyzed. Whole childhoods are spent in a state of post-traumatic stress. Occasions which should be high points in a lifetime are routinely curtailed or cancelled.

The people of this place are forced to bear the burden of the whole of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They are the unarmed proxy warriors of their side, victimized by the tactical cruelty of the other.

They are the victims of collective punishment. And they live in Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/944986.html

[winter999]

1. Thank You! K & R

If the rockets stopped, so would the bloodshed on both sides of the Gaza border. But some (Hamas) would rather destroy their entire people than give Peace a chance.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. Israel's decades-long violent occupation predates any rockets. nt

[Vegasaurus]

7. The Palestinians have used violence against Israel

since day one.

The rockets are only their latest threat. They have tried every other possible way they could think of to kill or terrorize Israelis, since 1948 (and before).

[subsuelo]

10. and vice versa

Israelis have used violence against the Palestinians since day one. Killing and terrorizing the natives since 1948, and before.

I'm not justifying either, by the way.

[TomClash]

2. Hamas is not an occupying power

so its actions, however stupid and wrong, do not constitute collective punishment under article 53.

[oberliner]

9. What about Article 33?

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

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/c525816bde96b7fd41256739003e636a/72728b6de56c7a68c12563cd0051bc40?OpenDocument

[TomClash]

11. It may be terrorism but it is not collective punishment nt

[Violet_Crumble]

12. It doesn't apply because Israel is not being occupied...

The purpose of the Fourth Geneva Convention is to provide protection for civilians in occupied territory.

The definition of 'protected persons' is 'Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.'

Collective punishment is something that's carried out by an occupying power against protected persons. While this describes what Israel has been doing to the population of Gaza, it does not apply to Israelis, who are not in the hands of an occupying power. There are other bits of international law that state that attacks on civilians are war crimes, but the Fourth Geneva convention isn't it, nor is the war crime being committed collective punishment...

[oberliner]

15. Thanks for the info!

Is it possible to use the term "collective punishment" outside of the context of the Geneva Conventions or is the meaning of that term specific to those circumstances?

If it means, simply, the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behavior of other individuals or groups then I think the phrase would be apt in this case.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. I think people do use it sometimes, but it's rather silly...

I don't know if you ever encountered it in school where an entire class is punished by the teacher coz the kid who superglued the teacher's seat won't own up, but that *could* be referred to as collective punishment. I think uses of it like that are stretching it every bit as much as the use of the word genocide is often stretched. I might be wrong but the use of the term collective punishment originated from the destruction of European towns in WWII where the population were punished for acts of resistance carried out by others. Which is why collective punishment comes into the Fourth Geneva Convention, which came about after WWII in order to provide protection to civilians in occupied territories...

When it comes to rocket attacks on Sderot, I wouldn't call that collective punishment unless I'd be calling 9/11 or the Bali Bombings collective punishment, and I wouldn't call either of them that. Those sort of attacks are acts of terrorism, where the intent isn't to punish a population, but to gain publicity for a cause and to sow fear in the population....

[bemildred]

21. The classic recent example is the Nazi habit of killing 10 random civilians

for each one of them that got killed. In fairness to the Nazis they did not invent that method, which has been quite popular with various wannabe ubermenschen in dealing with various disobedient untermenschen since antiquity, including some modern types that now like to parade around as paragons on human rights. What is different nowadays is that there is a widespread opinion that this sort of thing is unacceptable.

While there is some core of real meaning in such terms as "terrorism", "war crime", "collective punishment", "genocide", etc. they are so habitually used as propaganda terms and so habitually distorted to fit some current expediency to make noise with, that I find it better to avoid them.

[msmcghee]

29. And that "classic example" is what is meant . .

. . by the term "collective punishment". Notice that no Americans or Brits were accused of war crimes under that definition for bombing Germany or Japan where hundreds of thousands of civilians were "collectively punished". Also notice that Lt. Calley was accused of war crimes.

The reason that WWII bombings were not considered war crimes was not that the victors in war determine such things unilaterally - which I expect you'll claim. It was because no-one seriously thought that avoiding civilian casualties was a higher legal or moral concern than waging and winning a defensive war, even one where millions of civilians were killed.

It all depends on the nature and severity of the threat. Those bombings were largely considered proportional defense.

[LeftishBrit]

3. Great article! (And people should read all of it - neither side is being exonerated..)

'The Palestinians who fire Qassams, meanwhile, see them not as collective punishment but as legitimate self-defense, employed because they have no other alternative.

They are wrong. Dead wrong. And so are we.

Collective punishment is abhorrent. It is morally reprehensible. It is functionally self-defeating. It destroys the moral fiber of those who order it, practice it, countenance it, turn a blind eye to it.

This may explain why the victims of collective punishment may find themselves resorting to its use.

We are guilty of it. The Palestinians are guilty no less.

Crimes against humanity are crimes against humanity. The victims of crimes against humanity never "had it coming to them" as we might persuade ourselves to believe. '


This is what I keep trying to say here, but Burston says it so much better.

[msmcghee]

5. Have you read Article 53?

Do you know what it's purpose was?

Most importantly, what is your definition of "collective punishment"? The one you are using in the post above.

[LeftishBrit]

31. My definition...

is all attacks or violence or infliction of serious hardships that are expected and intended to include harm to people other than direct perpetrators of violence, especially when this includes civilians. (I say 'expected and intended' to exclude situations where a perpetrator is targeted directly, and others end up as collateral damage - this may or may not be justifiable in a given case, but does not come into the definition of 'collective punishment'.) This is especially so when the aim is to crush or terrorize a population into submission, or to take revenge.

I realize that my definition probably goes beyond the legal ones, and would cover most modern warfare and most acts of terrorism.

[msmcghee]

32. Yes, well the legal defintiion is intended basically . .

. . to cover acts of terrorism. Punishment directed at civilian populations as revenge or retaliation for acts they did not personally commit. Like when the Nazis executed villagers for the acts of the Partisans.

Please try to understand these laws and rules of warfare within the context they were written. The primary purpose is to minimize death and suffering of innocent civilians. Of course people in conflict will try to interpret them so they can become political weapons.

But when that tactic is successful those rules lose their ability to protect innocent civilians and they become a weapon used against those civilians. I won't lay out a case for that now - because I know you are intelligent enough to see it for yourself if you think about it - and if you care about those civilians' suffering.

[msmcghee]

26. The problem comes when people confuse . .

. . "collective punishment" with self defense.

Punishment implies making someone feel pain for revenge or coercion. The pain inflicted is the primary direct goal of the action.

Self defense can also make someone feel pain. As long as the purpose of an action or policy is clearly self defense however - it is not collective punishment - in the legal sense. Self defense is the primary legal and ethical concept in conflict according to international law and the UN Charter. The unimpeded right to proportional self defense is the fundamental concept in international law around which all other considerations are secondary.

It's obvious that Israel has tried many different schemes over the years to prevent attacks on its citizens. It's not like they are looking for ways to hurt Palestinians. And Israel's enemies have tried to find ways to attack Israel such that Israel's only effective defense would place the most hardship on Palestinians - as a strategic means of waging conflict that depends on the feelings of sympathy that can be generated in the west.

Yet, the Palestinians have always had it within their means to stop the need for Israel's defensive actions entirely - simply by not attacking Israelis.

When people accept the farce that Israel is engaged in "collective punishment" when actually they are engaged in self defense, they are not only being intellectually dishonest - they are undermining the legal and moral definitions that world bodies use to prevent revengeful attacks on civilian populations - and thereby they contribute to the death and suffering of the innocent.

[breakaleg]

27. You are absolutely right. I think you are one of those "people" that is very confused about what

collective punishment is.

[msmcghee]

30. I'm patiently waiting for you to make your case. n/t

[breakaleg]

4. He's equating the intentional collective punishment on 1.5 million people by the State of Israel

with the intent to bring their militants to heal , with the collective punishment on a town of 24000 people by a bunch of militants. There is something seriously wrong with the mindset that finds those two things equivalent.

[oberliner]

8. I don't think its fair to say that the Qassams are being launched by "a bunch of militants"

Hamas, which is ostensibly the ruling organization in Gaza at this point, is itself directing these rocket attacks against Israel.

The Qassam attacks are not rogue acts by militants but are rather intentionally designed attacks by the military wing of Hamas.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. So IMRA was wrong?

B) However, because of political considerations which will be discussed
below, Hamas does not directly participate in rocket launches for extended
periods of time, but rather grants the other organizations, especially the
Palestinian Islamic Jihad, considerable freedom of action. That enabled the
terrorist organizations to increase the scope of their rocket attacks
significantly in 2006 and 2007 and to train their sights on new Israeli
settlements (primarily the large city of Ashqelon ). When Hamas does decide
to join directly in the shooting, the range of settlements affected is
liable to be much greater because of the organization's potential and
technical capabilities.

and

vi. Since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip in June 2007, it has not directly
participated in rocket fire because its priority is to strengthen its grip
over the Strip.

http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=37293

[oberliner]

14. Thanks for the Info and Link!

I need to learn more about the Al Qassam Brigades. They claim to be the "military wing" of Hamas and are regularly "taking credit" for the Qassam attacks. It was my understanding that they maintained a working relationship with the political wing of Hamas. Perhaps this is not the case and they are working independently?

More information about who they are and how they are aflliated with Hamas would be greatly appreciated.

[bemildred]

16. I don't want to let anyone off the hook as far as the rockets go, but

it makes little sense on the one hand to admit that Hamas has imperfect control over Gaza, and indeed even to work to thwart that control, and on the other hand to blame them for all that goes on in Gaza. The truth is likely much messier and more chaotic than what gets discussed in the average "news" story.

It is entirely possible - of course - that this obfuscation of responsibility is in some part intentional, as it also is in Israeli political affairs.

If one actually wants to end the rockets, one of the first things one must do is re-establish order in Gaza, and there is only one likely candidate for that job at present.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

17. What do you mean?

Your post seems to suggest that Hamas would control the rockets if it could.

I think a more accurate way to assess the current situation is to ask: what do we do about the fact that while 12 years ago, the vast majority of palestinians favored peaceful negotiation, at present, a majority/large chunk (haven't seen polls) seem to support a party which calls for the use of violent resistance to tyranny.

So what does Israel do with that? The more violent the suppression, the more support the more radical parties engender.

It really calls motives into question, doesn't it?

[bemildred]

22. By paragraph:

Your post seems to suggest that Hamas would control the rockets if it could.

Yes. The whole point of rule is to control what happens. Power is the expectation of obedience. That is why the disobedient must be punished, whether they have committed some specific crime or not.

I think a more accurate way to assess the current situation is to ask: what do we do about the fact that while 12 years ago, the vast majority of palestinians favored peaceful negotiation, at present, a majority/large chunk (haven't seen polls) seem to support a party which calls for the use of violent resistance to tyranny.

Yes, we agree there. I like the way Uri Avnery put it in a piece some years ago: "The Prisoner of Ramallah". It was a subject of much amusement here among the refuseniks on the Israeli side. He pointed out that Arafat was the Palestinian leader that wanted to settle with the Israelis, and that if you eliminated him you would get the more intransigent types. So, guess what has occurred ...

So what does Israel do with that? The more violent the suppression, the more support the more radical parties engender.

If you like the way thing are going, then all you have to do is keep doing what you are doing. If you want to go somewheres else, you have to change your ways. Personally I think are screwed, I have been saying here for some time that just because it's bad for Palestinians, that doesn't mean it's good for Israel. That view is much too simple minded.

It really calls motives into question, doesn't it?

To my mind, it is more a matter of calling their grip on reality, or fondness for government koolaid, into question, but heck.

--

In the post you responded to I am saying two things:

1.) If you want to stop the rockets you have to restore political order in Gaza. The IDF and the settlers failed to stop the rockets, and the PA did no better, in both cases because of the lack of any effective and legitimate political order. People cannot be relied on to obey ineffective and/or illegitimate political actors. Legitimacy must be earned.

2.) The only present candidate for that job, in Gaza, is Hamas.

Various conclusions follow.

[Vegasaurus]

28. Actually, Hamas has done the worst job of all

of controlling the rockets (partly because they either encourage them, or shoot them off themselves).

[bemildred]

33. They have no incentive to stop the rockets, assuming they had the means.

The question was whether they would if they had both the means and also some incentive to do so.

[Violet_Crumble]

20. Who's the only likely candidate?

I think it might take more than one, coz there's got to be someone on the Israeli side as well, and Olmert sure isn't that person...

[bemildred]

23. True. I wasn't trying to be "realistic".

But the day will come.

[Violet_Crumble]

19. I think bemildred covered it well...

I don't think Hamas is particularly interested at all in stopping the rockets (I'm pretty sure they have the ability to put a stop to them if they wanted to), but neither do I think they're giving direct orders for them to be fired. After all, in the past Hamas has carried out horrific attacks on civilians in Israel and not been shy of taking credit, so I don't see any reason for them to be shy now....

[bemildred]

24. At present, all their incentives lie in the other direction.

To keep the rockets flying. There is nothing on the table, so why should they lift a finger?

"Freedoms just another word for nothin' left to lose".

[Vegasaurus]

25. They haven't been shy now either

The "armed wing" of Hamas has claimed responsibility a number of the rocket attacks. It isn't just IJ (or any of the other many militant groups).