Israel to relatives of Pallie bombers:
YER OUT OF HERE!
Posted on 09/03/2002 5:20:12 AM PDT by MadIvan
Israel's Supreme Court has approved the expulsion of relatives of a Palestinian militant from the West Bank to the Gaza Strip.
In a landmark ruling, a nine-judge panel upheld an order issued last month against the brother and sister of a Palestinian suspected of organising suicide bombings.
It said a third Palestinian related to another militant suspected of two shooting attacks near a Jewish settlement in the West Bank should be set free.
Palestinian officials called the decision a "black day for human rights" and said they might file a complaint with the UN Security Council and the International Criminal Court.
The militant Palestinian group Hamas called the ruling a "grave escalation" which "will be met by an escalation in the Palestinian resistance".
The three accused had appealed against the order, saying it was a form of collective punishment and violated international law.
Israel said the move was intended to deter future attacks by Palestinian militants.
Militant helped
The Israeli army said the brother and sister - 28-year-old Kifah and 34-year-old Intisar Ajouri - knew in advance about their brother Ali's plan to carry out attacks but did not act to prevent them.
The two are accused of providing logistical support for their brother, helping him avoid capture and having moved bombs.
The Israeli army (IDF) said Ali Ajouri masterminded several suicide attacks, including one in Tel Aviv on 17 July, 2002, which killed five people and wounded 40 others.
The IDF said Intisar had sewn explosives into a belt used by a suicide bomber in one of the attacks.
Ali Ajouri was shot dead by Israeli troops on 6 August, 2002.
The court said that it "had proved that they [the Ajouris] were involved in terrorism to the extent required such that they presented a reasonable possibility of danger".
It ruled that the Ajouris could be expelled from their home in the Iskar refugee camp in Nablus to the Gaza Strip for two years.
But the judges overturned an expulsion order against Abdel Nasser Asidi, the brother a militant accused of two West Bank ambushes which killed 19 Israelis.
Burden of proof
In handing down the ruling, Chief Justice Aharon Barak said Israel could only expel a suspected militant's relative if they presented a real security threat.
Legal experts say the decision means Israel cannot expel people merely to deter future attacks, and that the army will have to provide proof of some form of involvement before it can issue expulsion orders.
"The court ruled with a loud voice that deterrence cannot be a cause to take steps. This is a very, very positive point," said the Ajouris' lawyer Leah Tzemel.
The order against the Ajouris has been condemned by human rights organisations, who say it contravenes the Geneva Conventions and therefore constitutes a war crime - a charge that Israel denies.
The judges said they had not breached international law because the West Bank and Gaza formed one territorial unit and the orders were relocations rather than expulsions.
If the expulsions are carried out it will be the first time Israel has expelled a Palestinian from the area in which they live for 10 years.
Regards, Ivan
Every last Muslim must go, God has willed it.
You forget, these are people who also received $25K from Saddam.
Regards, Ivan
I did forget that. However, it doesn't speak to what Israel should do. They should do what appears to be right in terms of property and possessions.
First, because it is right. Second, because it is a public, visible event.
The IDF said Intisar had sewn explosives into a belt used by a suicide bomber in one of the attacks.
... Legal experts say the decision means Israel cannot expel people merely to deter future attacks, and that the army will have to provide proof of some form of involvement before it can issue expulsion orders.
Heck, these people who were moved from one part of Palestine to another part of Palestine (for only two years!) made bombs and actualy helped the bomber. In the states they would not be expelled to another neighborhood, but jailed on a dozen counts of accessory to murder. They are getting off FAR to light I think.
I think life in Jail for a bomb maker is a bit light though.
Israel to relatives of Pallie bombers:
YER OUT OF HERE!
There is hope. Maybe the war between Hamas and al-Aqsa will claim them :)
Seriously, my fear is that this may promote more cooperation between them.
When they started talking about expulsion, I assumed that they meant from the country. It never occurred to me that this is what they had in mind.
I don't understand why they didn't jail and try them as accessories.
It's doubtful these people owned any property. They have been living off the teat of the U.N. in refugee camps. War and fundamental nutty stuff is all they know or live for. Remember, it's one of the reasons they hate us and the West, what they perceive as our materialism and secular way of life. They aren't real big on acquiring property or "things." There will be nothing to return to them.
 |
Palestinians Kifah Ajouri (L) his sister Intisar Ajouri (C) and Abed Nasser Asidi sit in Israel's Supreme Court in Jerusalem, September 3, 2002. Israel's Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday in favor of the deportation of Intisar and Kifah Ajouri, accused by Israel of assisting their brother to carry out a bombing, but it rejected the deportation of Asidi. REUTERS/Gil Cohen Magen - Sep 03 7:37 AM ET |
Ah yes! I see a pattern forming! 'I don't like what my sovereign national Supreme Court sez, so I'm going to the ICC!!'
Grand. The ICC could turn every legal issue in the world into a Floriduh-supreme-court-type fiasco. Scary.
Other things to note:
So on the one hand, their judiciary reigns in the military, and at the same time, they participate in the prevention of "future crimes." A mixed bag fer sure.
Justice would see these families as accessories to murder dance on the end of a rope for all potential "future threats" to see!
Regards, Ivan
Imprison them for failure to notify the police of an impending attack. That is plain old rule-of-law stuff, and keeps them off the streets for many years legitimately.
I agree with the deportation policy, but not when there is a clearer, more elegant, justified route like imprisonment.
They should do what appears to be right in terms of property and possessions.
What "appears" to be right is evidently a matter of opinion, don't you think? It appears the world is holding Israel up to a different standard than it applies to anyone else. I can't think of a single country in the world at any point in history which has treated their enemies with the simple decency that Israel has done. Can you?
First, because it is right.
Why should Israel do what YOU think is right? Nothing personal, of course, but why should Israel do what anyone else thinks is "right"? Israel must do what it thinks is right and bear the consequences.....just like the rest of the world.
Second, because it is a public, visible event.
Interesting. Israel appears to be the only country in the world held up to such close scrutiny. Perhaps they should take the attitude that "since the world doesn't care when our citizens are murdered, we shouldn't care when the rest of the world thinks we are "mistreating" the Arabs." What do you think?
Perhaps I'm misreading you or the article, but I don't believe the "Palestinians" consider the Israeli Supreme Court to be "their" national court.
To the extent that there are exceptions who do own property/possessions then the right thing to do is to return them once the crisis is over. Would you accept that?
The question is not what they 'think' is true, it matters what is true. I believe a lot of black nationalist types don't consider the US Supreme Court to be their national court either. But it is.
Is there anything to which Hamas will not respond with "more escalation"?
Thank you, but there was no need to tell me this.
When it comes to doing the right thing, they should do what is right according to their own religious guidelines.
We agree on this.
Those guidelines call upon them to treat the alien in their midst with integrity. Ensuring that evictee property is returned after the period of crisis is over would be integrity laden.
Perhaps we are understanding the guidelines differently. It is my understanding that the alien has basic human rights, but no political ones. Moreover, the alien has to adhere to a certain mode of conduct in order to merit that treatment. Finally, there are certain aliens which Israel is NOT supposed to treat with integrity, e.g., Amalek. I am not saying all the Arabs are Amalek, but I feel pretty confident in saying that the bombers and their supporters are.
It will shine publicly.
I have to disagree. The media does not seem disposed to tell the truth about Israel. If they did, Israel would "shine publicly" now. Their treatment of the "Palestinians" has been more generous that that afforded to them by any Arab group, e.g., the Kuwaitis.
Those who truly care will notice. Particularly, God.
Those who truly care notice now. As for whether G-D notices, what do you think He notices when Jews allow other Jews to be blown to bits while signing "peace treaties" with the likes of Arafat?
What do you think?
I think that if the Israelis don't start sticking up for themselves, telling the truth, and doing what they're expected to do according to the laws which bind them, they're going to be in for a much tougher time than they've experienced so far.
The standard is justice. Justice for the alien would be doing for the innocent what is fair and doing for the guilty what is fair. There is reason to move the relatives of radicals out at this point, but that does NOT necessarily follow that all those relatives are guilty. Justice for enemies of the state who reside within the state by the good graces of the state is obvious.
what do you think He notices when Jews allow other Jews to be blown to bits while signing "peace treaties" with the likes of Arafat?
He notices shortsighted leadership. In the current system that leadership is elected. He notices a shortsighted citizenry.
This does not change in thrust if one uses a different translation/version.
Which standard? Where and when has this standard been applied previously? Previously, you mentioned that Israel should adhere to their religious laws. Does that standard still apply?
Justice for the alien would be doing for the innocent what is fair and doing for the guilty what is fair.
And who decides who is truly innocent or guilty? You? Me? The world media? The world media would have you believe that those who bomb, shoot, and otherwise murder Jews (even those at LAX) are merely activists or militants, while Jews in Israel PLANNING to blow up an Arab girls school are terrorists (even when their plan is foiled by the Israeli authorities).
There is reason to move the relatives of radicals out at this point, but that does NOT necessarily follow that all those relatives are guilty.
"Radicals"? Please. Murder does not happen in a vacuum. According to a recent poll, 68% of the "Palestinians" support the murder of Jews. What you say above about "all the relatives" is true, of course. There are no absolutes. However, the climate and culture is geared towards murder. If you look at the media, educational and religious institutions, they all espouse it. Making excuses will not help.
Justice for enemies of the state who reside within the state by the good graces of the state is obvious.
Are we going to split hairs about those who "reside within the state"? Justice is justice, and those who commit murder and their support network need to be punished.
what do you think He notices when Jews allow other Jews to be blown to bits while signing "peace treaties" with the likes of Arafat?
He notices shortsighted leadership. In the current system that leadership is elected. He notices a shortsighted citizenry.
I love how you are so confident about what you think He notices. But O.K. Who is short-sighted? The Jews? The Arabs? The U.S.? The world?
This does not change in thrust if one uses a different translation/version.
I dislike the practice of using snippets of the Torah to prove one's point, but since you started it......
The alien living with you
Using your own quote, I need only point out that the alien is NOT living with the Jew, but actively murdering them and conspiring to exterminate them. The alien has, on every piece of official stationary (including the web), a picture of the entire State of Israel and labels it "Palestine". The alien preaches murder in their mosques, their schools, their media, and in their legislature. That, by my definition, is not "living with" someone. Does your definition differ?
No. Except for those who are treated as guilty because of current military necessity, who might in fact be NOT GUILTY.
That is a possibility, and, as such, provision should be made for just and fair treatment.
Do you have any problem with that?
Not usually, no. ;)
Regards, Ivan
And who decides whether someone is "NOT GUILTY"?
That is a possibility, and, as such, provision should be made for just and fair treatment.
LOL....of course it's possible. But you do know that in war (and peace) "just and fair treatment" is difficult to achieve. For example, I'm sure there were Afghanis who where also "NOT GUILTY". But now, they're dead. Are you in the forefront of those who are demanding just and fair treatment for them as well? Frankly, I'm not. War isn't fair or just.
Do you have any problem with that?
From a theoretical standpoint, no. From a practical one, I don't see how you are going to accomplish it.
Such sophistry with words.
I believe any property seized from innocent Japanese who were interred during WWII should be immediately returned to them.
Same principle. Justice. What is it to you if someone gets back what's theirs? What's wrong with trying to see justice done?
Send me some more clintonian weasel-words....I get a kick out of watching the convolutions in your morality.
Sorry. While I could easily deal with your arguments, I refuse to do so since you feel my morality is questionable. Simply put, further discussion would be pointless.
Perhaps the next time we debate you will be less quick to try to insult.
After reviewing your words and deciding that you were straight up with me throughout, I'd like to admit that I was entirely too hard on you above.
I apologize for mischaracterizing your words and intentions.
(ps: not Jewish....but you were nonetheless right...I over-reacted to something I thought I saw in your posts. It wasn't there today when I reread them. Sorry.)
Now, as to your concerns above.....
I believe any property seized from innocent Japanese who were interred during WWII should be immediately returned to them.
We agree on this. However, I'm sure you will agree that the comparison is not really on point. For one thing, the Japanese did not deliberately target civilians and especially children. And most, if not all, Japanese-Americans did not applaud the murder of innocent American citizens, much less American servicemen and women. If they had done so, the outrage of the American public would have been such that few Japanese-Americans would have survived.
Same principle. Justice. What is it to you if someone gets back what's theirs? What's wrong with trying to see justice done?
Let's assume that the principle is "Justice". Again I have to ask the question, who decides and how is it accomplished from a practical point of view?
Let me give you an example. According to Arab accounts, in 1948 the Jews drove the Arabs out and these Arabs and their decendents are entitled to "return". Yet, to allow them to return would destroy the Jewish character of the State. In contrast, the Israelis claim that the Arabs left of their own free will despite Israeli pleas not to leave. They left because they were promised that after the invading Arab armies slaughtered the Jews, these Arabs could return and steal the property of the dead Jews (much like Europeans did to those who were murdered during the Holocaust. When some of the Jews did return to their former homes, the Christians living in them murdered the Jews so that they could keep their homes).
Now, who decides what justice is in this case and how do you go about arranging it?
Also, there is something to be said for, for lack of a better word, "collective guilt".
Take, for example, the recent killing of Salah Shehada, the head of Hamas military wing. Israel killed him with a 1 ton bomb which also killed a number of "innocent" civilians. The world screamed in protest (something they have not done when Jews are blown to bits). Here's a statement from Shoshana Bryen of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs: "If "the people" don't believe evil leaders are using them against their own best interests; and if "the people" like having Shehada and his goons among them; and if "the people" do as Hamas said they would, i.e., turn them into human torches so that restaurants in Israel will run with Jewish blood, they and we will have to accept that "the people" are morally inseparable from "their leaders". And there are consequences to all of that." I don't know about you, but I can certainly see her point. Is it justice? I don't know. What is the price we must pay for "moral laxity" in the face of evil? What about when the evil exists amongst us and we do nothing? What about when our leaders are the ones perpetrating the evil?
When Bill Clinton bombed the Serbs, I was outraged. But, I didn't do anything more than verbally protest. Had the Serbs decided to "revenge themselves" by attacking American citizens, G-D forbid, I would have also been outraged, but I think I might have understood their anger/motivation.
Bottom line, it is sometimes difficult to know what justice is and how best to achieve it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
