Sunday, May 23, 2010

Destroying Palestinian Homes

Hamas is razing Palestinian homes. 20 so far, another 180 planned.

I don't expect the usual suspects will make much of a fuss, but that's obvious. I do however wonder if the Palestinian propaganda machine will ever fess up to the fact the house demolitions are not an Israeli monopoly.


Victor said...

A friend of mine, the security coordinator for Shiloh, tells how in 2001 and 2002 Arafat's goons were taking advantage of the intifada to gun down Palestinians who opposed Fatah. It was happening in the villages next to Shilo, they could hear the screaming and shooting.

The villagers were calling anyone they could to come help them stop the massacre. One day, there will be an accounting of the Palestinian lives the PLO destroyed after it came back from Tunis.

NormanF said...

Victor, the Israeli government deserves the blame for importing a defeated terrorist band exiled in Tunis into Yesha. No one forced them them to do it and history will not forgive them for this treachery to the Jewish nation.

Alex Stein said...

As I was fond of saying to Richard Silverstein before he banned me, you can only say what's good for the goose is good for the gander if you agree that 'what' is good for the goose in the first place. So can we surmise from your post that you are also opposed to Israel destroying Palestinian houses in the Occupied Territories?

Yaacov said...


I'm in favor of us not being in the occupied territories (no need to write them with capital letters). And indeed, throughout most of them it has been years since Israel has demolished houses: the governing there is done by the PA (in the West Bank), and by Hamas (in Gaza), and Israel doesn't deal with such matters. The exceptions are demolitions of homes of suicide murderers - but those, fortunately have tapered off for various reasons; acts of war, in Gaza, which have also tapered off, at least for the time being, after our proportional use of force in January 2009 convinced then to desist; and Jerusalem, where we're the government and need to remain so, don't you think?

Alex Stein said...

Good point re. occupied territories.

The key words, of course, are 'throughout most of them' - I shall email examples if and when they arise, so you don't miss the opportunity to condemn them.

Re. demolition of homes of suicide murders; you missed the words 'and sometimes the families of'

I'm afraid I'm one of those fools who supports Jerusalem becoming the capital of both Israel and Palestine, although I recognise it's far from ideal.

Barry Meislin said...

One day, there will be an accounting of the Palestinian lives the PLO destroyed after it came back from Tunis.

You live on which planet?

Barry Meislin said...

I'm afraid I'm one of those fools who supports Jerusalem becoming the capital of both Israel and Palestine, although I recognise it's far from ideal.

Granted. But you forgot to mention:

*"...who supports the Hamas takeover of the West Bank and the ensuing decimation of those PA supporters who insist on continuing to support the PA (though there won't be many of those left, it is true)."

Not that you support it, of course (of course you don't! Who could imagine such a thing?!); but that's exactly what's going to happen as a result of what you say you support.

And after the civil war and murderous mayhem, terror and destruction---necessarily brief, considering who the most ruthless party is---(all of which you support---I mean, don't support---but which the policies you support will engender), the guns will be turned on Israel.

Did I say, "after the civil war"?

Change that to "during and after".

And as far as "...far from ideal..." goes, well, that would depend, wouldn't it?....

Yaacov said...

Alex -

I didn't miss the words about the families. The whole point of demolishing homes of suicide murderers is to give them pause before they kill themselves: they personally don't mind dying, but if they know their mom and dad and kid sisters and brothers will all be standing out in the cold rain the day after they kill themselves, some of them might care enough not to kill themselves.

I think the story of 2002-2005 proves this tactic worked. Or anyway, it was part of a larger policy which certainly worked. So strange as it may seem demolishing homes of families of murderers, led to the saving of Palestinian lives, since many of them decided not to kill themselves, after all.

Who would have thunk, huh?

Alex Stein said...

Yaacov - did you come across the 2005 IDF report which suggested that destroying terrorists' houses didn't work as a deterrent?

Barry Meislin said...

Keeping in mind that Israeli deterrence is "aggression"; while the amassing (and use) of tens of thousands of missiles by Hezbullah and Hamas (for starters) is perfectly legitimate "self-defense".

Alas, nothing acts as a deterrent to those intent on aggression, ultimately, except massive casualties and destruction.

Which would appear to make all deterrence absolutely immoral...according to the current progressive POV.

Well, no, not exactly.

Some "deterrence" is more equal than others.

The success of the Nakba Narrative (TM) makes Israeli deterrence immoral since the message that Israel is an illegitimate state has been relentlessly and successfully pounded in.

The flip side of the coin is that it makes Hezbullah/Hamas/Syrian/Iranian "deterrence" eminently moral because Israel is a (you guessed it) illegitimate state....

...since Hezbullah/Hamas/Syrian/Iranian "deterrence" is meant to deter Israel from defending itself against the destruction promised it by Hezbullah/Hamas/Syria/Iran.

Which is why all progressives must support Hezbullah/Hamas/Syria/Iran (and you can throw in the PA and Venezuela)---for despite their, um, let's call them "imperfections," they have got the main thing right: the need and the virtue of destroying the Zionist Entity.

And which is why all so-called liberals must turn a blind eye to the threats of Israel's neighbors to destroy Israel; must ignore Israel's efforts to reach some kind of agreement with the Palestinians; must deny that for Palestinians, the definition of Middle-East "peace" is a Middle East from which Israel has been expunged.

This Is Hell said...

Dividing Jerusalem is not SUPPOSED to bring peace. It's SUPPOSED to bring war as an excuse for further Israeli capitulations until there is no part of Jerusalem where Jews are permitted to live. Any idiot can see that, event the idiots here.

Lee Ratner said...

Generally, I think that Israel and Palestine, and there will need to be an independent Palestine, will need to reach a compromise involving Jerusalem. What I generally favor is that Jerusalem's boundries being frozen and legally part of both countries fully rather than divided. Jerusalem would have its own joint city government for infrastructure, planning, police, and other local matters but other services like education would be controlled by the national governments of both countries. Its going to be a bit tense but its the most workable solution.

Maybe if police work is to contentious we can have a police forced composed entirely of people who are not Jewish, Muslim, or Christian.

Bryan said...

Lee: that's a terrible idea. Firstly: how many Hindu/Buddhist/atheist policement are you going to find that want to patrol what in your situation would be one of the tensest and most volatile cities in the world? And to whom would they be responsible? How would resources get to and from the city and how would they be distributed once they are there? Frankly, I don't think you've given one millisecond of thought as to how dual-sovereignty would be exercised in real life.

The most "workable" situation is leaving Israel its capital and letting the Palestinians share in the "painful concessions." Israel is already offering Hebron, David's first capital, and Shechem, the first capital of the Kingdom of Israel, up for Arab rule. Surely the Palestinians--whose millennia of poetry and prose longing for Jerusalem could fit in my back pocket without taking my wallet out--can make a little concession too.