Posted on 08/09/2002 7:42:54 PM PDT by knighthawk
In the wake of the Palestinian outrages of the past several weeks, Israel has re-implemented a deterrent policy of demolishing the homes of terrorists' families and has begun exiling the family members of suicide bombers to the fenced-off Gaza strip.
These practices have prompted widespread condemnation by human rights groups, but one surprising source has acknowledged the wisdom of the move. Hamas announced after Friday's university cafeteria bombing that it will now use bombs instead of suicide bombers following Israel's implementation of the new punishments. Since bombs are more easily detected in abandoned backpacks than they are strapped to their human carriers, one thing that can be said about the family punishments is that they may eventually start to work.
These punishments were upheld this week by the generally liberal Israeli Supreme Court. The court listened patiently to the arguments presented by several Palestinians whose homes have been slated for destruction, who contended that the demolitions constitute a form of collective punishment contrary to most human rights conventions. In the end, however, the judges agreed with the government's view that Israel is engaged not in a policing effort but in a war, and that such policies are a necessary, if painful, deterrent.
Human rights lawyers and others who automatically condemn these punishments must think harder about the context in which they occur. The law has always recognized that there is a hierarchy of rights, and that some trade-off between rights protection and the protection of human lives is essential.
Indeed, the United Nations itself has endorsed the notion that trade-offs are necessary in the struggle against terrorism. Although the leading international convention on civil aviation left it to each state to decide whether to extradite hijackers and other airline fugitives, Security Council Resolution 731 compelled the government of Libya to hand over two of its security officers to Britain for trial in the Lockerbie airline bombing. When Libya complained that international law was breached by the Security Council's resolution, the International Court of Justice replied that the need to eradicate terrorism overrides Libya's national rights.
The Canadian courts have engaged in a similar balancing act. Earlier this year the Supreme Court affirmed the removal of an immigrant accused of being an assassin for the Iranian intelligence services. Before he could be put on the plane, however, he applied to the UN Human Rights Committee for a stay of his deportation, arguing that Canada had not properly considered his contention that he would be mistreated upon his return to Iran. The UN Committee agreed that he had a point under international law. However, the Ontario Court of Appeal, in reconsidering the matter, found that his point was outweighed by the more pressing concern for the safety of Canadians, and ordered him deported immediately.
The law, it would seem, like life itself, is all about trade-offs. At some point the human rights of perpetrators of violence pales in comparison to the need to prevent the suffering they inflict on their victims. The question is how far these trade-offs can go. Can those who are not guilty of violence be made to sacrifice their rights in order to save the lives of others? The Israeli courts have now answered in the affirmative.
The most famous cases to address the balance of human rights entail shipwrecked sailors who prey on one of their number in order to save the rest. In the leading American case, a ship's captain was condemned for choosing a passenger rather than a member of his crew to throw off an overloaded lifeboat, but he was praised for taking the difficult decision to sacrifice the few to save the many. By contrast, in the leading English case, sailors were condemned to death for having sacrificed and eaten the cabin boy in order to sustain themselves in a lifeboat otherwise devoid of food and water.
The Israeli Supreme Court did not, of course, have to make the impossible choice. Were the question one of demolishing the cabin boy's family home rather than devouring him for supper, or exiling the passenger's family to another part of the country rather than sending him to the depths, the famous cases would not be famous at all.
As the Israeli court saw it, the trade-off was between rights that exist in a hierarchy. A life for a life, even for many lives, is not easy to defend. On the other hand, a life in exchange for a house, or for a choice of where to live, was a relatively easy decision. The Hamas admission that the policies work confirms this.
It's called "aiding and abetting", they are guilty too. It's like the wheel man in a murderous robbery claiming "I was only driving the car".
"Just following orders, Sir." It didn't work at Nuremberg and it shouldn't work in Israel.
Actually I'm a little surprised at the ISC ruling - as pointed out in the article they tend to be pretty "liberal". I guess self-preservation has a way of focusing the mind.
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.