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.
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.
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.