Culture, Israel, Politics, Religion

In Germany they called it 'Sippenhaft'

In May of 2003, German-born three-time Knesset member, Ariel Sharon biographer, and Gush Shalom founder Uri Avnery wrote the following:

One of the most progressive Jewish principles of old is now being put to the test: “In those days they shall say no more, ‘The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge.” (Jeremiah, 31.)
A suicide bomber kills himself. Should his [family] be punished for that?
The Israeli army of occupation says: Yes, indeed! Furthermore, anyone who helps the [family] is a criminal, an accomplice, a supporter of terrorism. If the potential suicide bomber knows that his family will starve after his death, he might shrink from committing the deed. But if he knows that somebody will take care of his family, his readiness to become a martyr will be strengthened.
That is to say: “The fathers have eaten a sour grape and the children’s teeth shall be set on edge. Every one shall die for his fathers iniquity, the teeth of his whole family shall be set on edge.”
In recent times, this logic has frequently been acted upon. When Stalin’s secret police arrested a man as an “imperialist spy”, his family was dispersed, his wife sent to the Gulag and the children to the party’s orphanage. The Nazis created the term “Sippenhaft“, meaning that the whole family is responsible for the acts of any of its members. Until now, such methods were associated with totalitarian regimes. Even if this method were effective, if starving the wives and children of suicide bombers deter others, we must still say: No. We cannot allow our state to behave like this, just as we do not take hostages and shoot them or wrap the corpses of suicide bombers in pigs’ skins, as has been suggested by some (to prevent them from entering paradise). In the final analysis, that is not wise, either. The prophets of Israel were no fools.

According to news reports – in response to the bombing in Netanya yesterday, Israeli soldiers have rounded up and detained several family members (including a 15 year old) of the now-deceased bomber Lotfi Abu Saada, 21. The Associated Press cited relatives as describing Mr. Saada as an illiterate grade school dropout who was exploited by Islamic Jihad.
Israel’s Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz is seeking legal approval from Israel’s Attorney General to reverse a ban on illegally demolishing the family homes of suicide bombers, arguing that such a measure has a substantial deterrent effect. These house demolitions were suspended a few months ago in the wake of a recommendation by a military committee that found they were of no benefit. Mofaz told Sharon of his request to the attorney general and received the prime minister’s full backing for the move.
And rather than containing the reaction to people directly involved in this horrible act of terrorism, the government is preparing a “massive operation” which will collectively punish the entire population of both the West Bank and Gaza, and could last as long as a month.
Sources: Ha’aretz, Associated Press, Ynet

62 thoughts on “In Germany they called it 'Sippenhaft'

  1. I’d like to say that I’m surprised by your reactions to the latest ‘news’ reports, but sadly I’m not. Before we go jumping to any conclusions, perhaps we should give the government the benefit of the doubt before we start condemning them as Nazis? If they carry out mass reprisals aimed at innocent civilians for the sake alone of retribution following this recent terrorist atrocity, I’ll happily march along side you in protest. Until then, let’s keep the rhetoric to a low ebb shall we? Islamic Jihad knew exactly what they were doing, and justice should be served in due course. Not to mention the fact that a government’s first responsibility is to protect her citizenry.
    The spanblock word is ‘responsibility’. How apt.

  2. If you think that Israel is as morally represhensible as Stalin or the Nazis, then why don’t you just say it instead of cowardly hiding behind Uri Avnery?
    The fact that Palestinians (and their government) collectively support these suicide bombers (by not doing anything to stop them and by celebrating afterwards) makes them collectively guilty of the crimes.

  3. man, if it was your family you wouldn’t be so condemning about it..and as the facts stand, the Israelis are not gonna do much anyway..they should level every known terrorist hotbed city and expel all of these people, if they can expel 9000 jews who committed no murders and leave them jobless and homeless why not expel the families of murdering scum?

  4. F’ing Brown. We just got through an entire post (Mob’s use of pogrom and stormtrooper) about the ill use of Nazi-like imagery when referring to Jews/Israelis. It’s obscene, clouds the issue and always factually wrong.
    Brown, I hope you’re hitting the gym because you go off comparing Israelis/Jews to nazis within most Jewish communities and someone’s gonna take a run at your head.
    Or is it that readership is down at Jewschool, and Mob and yourself have decided to drive up traffic by using inflammatory language?

  5. DB – I never said anything approaching “Israel is as morally reprehensible as Stalin or the Nazis”, nor did I imply it.
    This post is not about the Nazis, Stalin or even Israel. This post is about two ideas: The concept of Sippenhaft, and the concept of collective punishment.
    Now you say that the Palestinians and their government collectively support the suicide bombers. But that is not supported by the facts:
    1) Abbas condemned Monday’s suicide bombing and ordered the arrest of those involved
    2) The Palestinian Authority made a number of arrests of IJ members
    3) Gun battles broke out between the PA security forces and Islamic Jihad during another attempted arrest
    4) I have seen no reports of any celebrations
    Now the fact is, if you support collective punishment in this situation then you are unwittingly justifying acts such as Kristallnacht.
    Do you even know the background of Kristallnacht? It all began when a kid named Herschel Grynszpan shot and killed a German official named Ernst vom Rath in retaliation for his family’s deportation from Germany, and for the official’s unwillingness to help his family. If Grynszpan were a Palestinian and vom Rath an Israeli official, this would today be called an act of terrorism.
    The German government decided that the Jews of Germany were collectively responsible for his crime (Sippenhaft) and went on a pogrom against Jews throughout the country. Personally I happen to think that what Grynspan did was understandable. Were I in the same situation I might have done the same thing.
    Aviva wrote: “man, if it was your family you wouldn’t be so condemning about it”
    It’s hard to say since it’s not my family. However, I bet Ernst vom Rath’s family was supportive of Kristallnacht.

  6. First this:
    “In Germany they called it ‘Sippenhaft'”
    But then this:
    “DB – I never said anything approaching “Israel is as morally reprehensible as Stalin or the Nazis”, nor did I imply it.
    And then this:
    “Now the fact is, if you support collective punishment in this situation then you are unwittingly justifying acts such as Kristallnacht. ”
    Besides yourself…how many other folks on Jewschool buy your BS?

  7. It’s true that homes of suicide bombers are destroyed, even if there are people living there, but really, that’s the only way to fight back suicide bombing… you can’t punish that person anymore, ya know.
    The idea is that suicide bombers will have another thought before they actually commence their attack, it’s not a question of morality, it’s one of the means to prevent future attacks and thus prevention of innocent Israeli citizen deaths and harm.
    So yes, you can take it as an immoral act, but the truth is that these rather “aggressive” acts from the Israeli government had saved more lives than it could otherwise, no matter how many defensive means the army has.
    The ball is at their (palestinians) court, so either they stop killing innocent people or they would simply suffer, no other word to describe me (call me immoral if you like, but I am right).

  8. “Now the fact is if you support collective punishment in this situation then you are unwittingly justifying acts such as kristallnacht”
    your “fact” is wrong. no ones attacking them becaase they’re palestinian, as all the Jews were attacked merely for being Jewish.. Theyre being arrested and such because they are close direct relations of someone who just blew up a load of innocent people. But you probably dont think they’re innocent.

  9. There’s a difference between saying an entire group of people is collectively guilty of a crime and being wrong, and saying that an entire group of people is collectively guilty of a crime and being right.
    For instance, the Germans were collectively guilty in the Holocaust and the French were collectively guilty in collaborating with the Nazis and then inventing the myth of resistance. On the other hand, Denmark collectively did good in saving its Jews.
    To claim that the Jews of Germany were collectively guilty of a crime carried out by one person (or even a small group of people, though in this case it seems to have been Herschel Grynszpan acting alone) is just wrong. There were no Jewish institutions in Germany that supported this person or what he did.
    Now, to the Palestinians. Suicide bombers are not people who act on their own. There needs to be an entire infrastructure supporting them, for example, making the explosives and the detonators, recruiting people, picking a target, transporting the bomber to the target through all the checkpoints, etc. All of this exists in the Palestinian territories, and it is this infrastructure that the PA has done nothing to destroy. Furthermore, there is a culture in the PA that celebrates these bombers. They are called martyrs and posters of them are plastered everywhere. Many families of the bombers (though not all) even celebrate their martyr rather than mourn what has happened. Without this pervasive infrastructure of terrorism and the culture that validates it (even celebrates it), suicide bombings would not happen. This is what makes Palestinians collectively guilty.

  10. Avihoo Ilan wrote: “The idea is that suicide bombers will have another thought before they actually commence their attack, it’s not a question of morality, it’s one of the means to prevent future attacks and thus prevention of innocent Israeli citizen deaths and harm. “
    The problem with that theory, as noted in the B’tselem link I provided is:
    Brigadier General Ariyeh Shalev examined the effect of house demolitions on the scope of violence. He found that the number of violent events did not diminish following house demolitions, and at times even rose. Similar findings were reached in an internal IDF report on house demolitions during the al-Aqsa intifada. In their book The Seventh War, journalists Amos Harel and Avi Isacharoff reported that the IDF report stated there was no proof of the deterrent effect of house demolitions, and that the number of attacks even rose a few months after implementation of the policy began.
    Avihoo Ilan continued: “the truth is that these rather “aggressive” acts from the Israeli government had saved more lives than it could otherwise”
    Do you have some kind of proof for this claim? I have provided evidence to the contrary of what you are saying.
    ———–
    danny wrote: “your “fact” is wrong. no ones attacking them becaase they’re palestinian, as all the Jews were attacked merely for being Jewish.. Theyre being arrested and such because they are close direct relations of someone who just blew up a load of innocent people. But you probably dont think they’re innocent.”
    Actually danny – I did just deny the validity of the concept of collective responsibility. However since you seem to be arguing in favor of it, then logic would dictate that collective responsibility would apply to the Israeli side as well wouldn’t it ? After all, what had the people in that mall done to stop the occupation, to stop home demolitions of innocent people, etc. So you see, that when you argue in favor of collective responsibility you may also justify these kinds of terror attacks against Israeli civilians.

  11. Sadly, what we call “collective punishment” is often the only deterent to terrorism. After 9/11 NPR ran a report stating that Jordan was one of the few countries to ever flly break a terrorist or. and they did it by threatening the lives of the families of the terrorists. Nice-no. Effective-in that case it was. Clearly the suicie bomber cannot be punished after the event. Is there any action governments can take that have a deterrent effect. Israel has worked hard to make these murders harder to commit, but suicide bombers can not be prevented 100% Maybe arresting families on a theory of providing aid, assitance and comfort to the bomber before the act will have the desired affect. Maybe the government should be forced to prove that the family knew or should have known of the individuals involvement with Hamas/IJ etc. Requiring specific fore knowledge of the attack may be too high a burden.
    Obviously, in the fight against terror attacjk, answers are hard to come by.
    As to the comparisons of Jews to Nazis/Stalinists-YES, it is offensive.

  12. What seem so obvious to some…hell Romper Room, is complex Calculus to others. Or is it that when you’re so entrenched into a position you are unable/unwilling to concede your entire premise is faulty. Hmmm.
    God willing we’ll never see the day when folks are blowing themselves up in our shopping malls. But if the Oka crisis (in Quebec) is any indication of how the Canadian Army/Police handle a few men with M 16’s, then I have no doubt we’ll see much more drastic measures than what we’re seeing in Israel.
    Hey Brown, when it comes to vegan cooking and pot brownies, I’ll turn to your types. But when it comes to security, I’ll leave to folks like Sharon.

  13. John Brown,
    Your post embarasses me. By protesting the army’s responsibility to punish those who clearly loved and supported a man who chose to blow himself up in Netanya because of religious fanaticism, you pervert all of the complex Jewish traditions that Uvnery exemplifies: an elite, Schoneberg perception of how the powerful must punish the powerless when they commit a crime. In the meantime, stick to your posts about your socialist Yiddish roots in New York. They are far more interesting.

  14. shtriemel – but this is a red herring. I didn’t say Israel shouldn’t arrest the perpetrators of the terror attack, or fight against Islamic Jihad
    I only spoke of the family members and the general Palestinian population
    Likewise, if I wanted to follow your dishonest example I could show a photo of Kahanists having a party at Baruch Goldstein’s grave, and suggest that the Israelis collectively support his actions at the mosque in Hebron in 1994 but that would be just as disingenuous as what you’ve just done, and thus I’ve never tried to conflate Kahanists to Israel as you’ve tried to conflate Islamic Jihad to several million Palestinians.

  15. “I only spoke of the family members and the general Palestinian population ”
    By training, I’m an individual/family therapist. And if there’s one thing I learned about families it’s this…where there’s dysfunction, there’s an entire system feeding the dysfunction. And this is true 100% of the time.
    “Likewise, if I wanted to follow your dishonest example I could show a photo of Kahanists having a party at Baruch Goldstein’s grave, and suggest that the Israelis collectively support his actions at the mosque in Hebron in 1994”
    John…you know (because you’ve been told time and time again) that Baruch, and his followers, stand out BECAUSE it’s such a rare incident. And do you know why we don’t remember any Hamas/Islamic Jihad names…BECAUSE it’s so common stance.
    I do not believe the photo I’ve presented misrepresents the underlying motives of many Palestinians. And ME history supports my position….say 5-6 wars worth. And I DO believe that given the opportunity…Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Palestinians, etc. would jump at the chance of pushing the Jews into the sea. And this belief informs my support of the IDF/Israeli government for doing whatever they have to do to protect their citizens.

  16. Sorry, John Brown, but I think you’ve been very seriously caught out on this one. A ‘sticky wicket’ as we call it here in the UK.
    ‘This post is not about the Nazis, Stalin or even Israel. This post is about two ideas: The concept of Sippenhaft, and the concept of collective punishment.’
    Really? If that were true, one could present this topic without the use of invective and invite intelligent discourse. Instead you titled the article ‘In Germany They CALLED it Sippenhaft’, phrasing it in such a way as to lead to the drawing of parallels in the reader’s mind between Israel and Nazi Germany. And don’t tell me that isn’t the way you meant it, becuase you have employed one of the oldest and cheapest tricks in the debating book. And instead of putting up your hand and admitting you have it wrong you now talk yourself into a corner and pretend like you were just trying to present the facts as you see them and invite a discussion. You’ve also chosen to include the use of Stalin and Nazis in the quote from Uri Avnery. Was that truly necessary if you wished to have a discussion on collective punishment? You can certainly have a discussion of that nature without including references to Stalin, Nazi Germany, and the concept of sippenhaft.
    I’m not impressed. If you want to cheapen your argument and draw parallels to Israel and Nazis then be man enough to stand up and admit that these are the parallels you are drawing. I can at least respect that, whilst certainly not agreeing with it. But to attempt to allude to these parallels and then try to talk your way out of them is intellectually dishonest.

  17. And while I’m at it.
    ‘Do you even know the background of Kristallnacht? It all began when a kid named Herschel Grynszpan shot and killed a German official named Ernst vom Rath in retaliation for his family’s deportation from Germany, and for the official’s unwillingness to help his family. If Grynszpan were a Palestinian and vom Rath an Israeli official, this would today be called an act of terrorism.’
    Huh? So now Kristallnacht is the fault of one Jew? Understanding history is a matter of interpretation, and I’m saddened that you choose to interpret Kristallnacht (an event that many believe was premeditated by the Nazis who were looking for a reason to unleash it…sound familiar?…wasn’t that the PA excuse for the second intifada starting, that a Jew had walked on the sacred ground of the Dome of the Rock?) in this way. The only ones who bear any responsibility whatsoever for the violence perpetrated on Kristallnacht are the Nazis who planned and executed it.

  18. Matityahu wrote : “Huh? So now Kristallnacht is the fault of one Jew?”
    Now you’re truly spinning like a top. What I wrote was “The German government decided that the Jews of Germany were collectively responsible for his crime (Sippenhaft) and went on a pogrom against Jews throughout the country.”
    Now exactly where in that do you find me blaming Grynszpan ?

  19. “And don’t tell me that isn’t the way you meant it, becuase you have employed one of the oldest and cheapest tricks in the debating book.”
    Welcome to Jewschool. And when they (and by they I’m referring to Dan and John) defend their use of such terms they either:
    1) Try to draw parallels and sink within the depravity of their comparison – most often Mobs approach
    2) Feign innocent and condemn you for having such a sick, victimized mindset – most often Brown’s.

  20. There is NO EXCUSE for killing innocent people. NO EXCUSE!!
    The Terrorism must stop, and stop soon. I am sick of this. My brother, Jonathan J. Uman was killed by Islamic Sickos so I fully understand and am completely on Israels side. There is NO EXCUSE to kill innocent people. The only thing terrorism does is strengthens my resolve to destroy the terrorists. I fully support the destruction of the homes of people who commit terrorist attacks on anyone. What do people who have so little value for life care about? What punishment would prevent these Whack-Jobs from carrying out their evil plans? By making life for those family members who survive, it should make these scum think twice about it. I really think it is a great idea to bury their remains in pigskins. They claim they are doing it to go to their version of the afterlife {I hope it is far, far away from heaven}.
    I pray daily that the violence will cease and we will once again resume peace talks. I support a two state solution, but I am quite tired of the malarkey coming from the Palestinians. Do they truely want peace, or do they just want to blame Israel for all their problems. No other nation of people have been so slow to bring themselves up. The Jews were persecuted, killed, and Hitler attempted to exterminate us… But we survived, built homes, built wealth, sent kids to college, and made our lives better. We don’t blame others for our failings.
    I am sorry about the conditions of the Palestinians, but I don’t blame Israel for their condition. I blame Arafat and his bunch of thugs and terrorists. That Fool had no intention of bringing peace for his people. He was the primary reason for the continued violence. Arafat was 100% terrorist. I have been around long enough to remember all the failed promises.
    Michael U

  21. PS: My brother Jonathan was killed on 9/11 while working for Cantor Fitzgerald on the 105th floor of WTC tower #1…

  22. I am sorry about the conditions of the Palestinians, but I don’t blame Israel for their condition. I blame Arafat and his bunch of thugs and terrorists.”
    Michael…I’m truly sorry about your loss.
    However we have, and do, play a part in the suffering of Palestinians. There’s more than enough information out there that supports this claim. There are rotten soldiers, narcissistic politicians, etc., etc. Where I draw the line vis-à-vis blame is terrorism (I don’t blame Israeli’s for the conditions which encourage/support an individual to murder innocent civilians) and the use of Nazi-imagery to demonize Jews.”

  23. John:
    Do you even read your own posts before you try to defend your flawed logic?
    “Now you’re truly spinning like a top. What I wrote was “The German government decided that the Jews of Germany were collectively responsible for his crime (Sippenhaft) and went on a pogrom against Jews throughout the country.””
    Really? Are you so naieve as to believe that there was some German government commission a la the 9/11 Commission who investigated the Grynszpan incident and then decided to unleash a pogrom as punishment on the Jews of Germany? You give the anti-Semites far too much credit I’m afraid. Kristallnacht was in the works and would have happened irrespective of the Grynszpan incident, in my opinion, and the Nazis were looking for something that would provide good diplomatic cover. Looks like you’ve swallowed that bait, and are working your way up the entire fishing rod.
    The point that I was expressing is that you have decided to analyse Kristallnacht as an incident which happened as a direct result of the Grynszpan incident, a point of view that I consider intellectually flawed at best. Anti-Semistism, and indeed hate crimes the world over including terrorism, are not a ’cause and effect’ situation. ‘If we stop doing this, they’ll not hurt us.’ That’s a load of bollocks, in my estimation.

  24. John:
    If you’d like to return to a discussion regarding collective punishment, which I believe you stated was your original intention, I would refer the right honourable gentlemen to a post made regarding Abbas’ decision to reward shahids with PA money.

    http://www.nfc.co.il/archive/0
    It would seem that this does change the argument now, doesn’t it? If the PA were to declare a state, th payment of shahids would constitute an act of war and Israel could invoke the right of self defence under the UN charter. Instead, they continue to send suicide bombers to kill and maim innoncent civilians as some deprived and sick political ‘expression’.

  25. Talk about collective punishment huh John? Looks like most folks find your choice of words repugnant. Is your silence:
    a) an admission of wrong doing
    b) due to a hell-bent Google search for anything to redeem your awful post?

  26. I hope this will be posted on the main Jewschool site, but for those wishing to read an English translation of the news article I make reference to in my last post (Abbas Signs in Law to Support ‘Martyr’ Families) here you go.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar

  27. Matityahu wrote: “Really? Are you so naieve as to believe that there was some German government commission a la the 9/11 Commission who investigated the Grynszpan incident and then decided to unleash a pogrom as punishment on the Jews of Germany?
    As a matter of fact, all the top Nazis were assembled at a dinner that evening and so yes apparently there was an organized and concerted effort led by Goebbels to launch Kristallnacht as a collective punishment. Now, was it an already existing plan? I do not know. Would that change anything? I would presume that the plans Israel are going to unleash on the West Bank and Gaza are “canned” plans that already exist as well – it’s not like they are going to make up new plans on how to seal the west bank and gaza. Those plans already exist, and are just waiting for some reason to use them.
    Matityahu continued : “…you have decided to analyse Kristallnacht as an incident which happened as a direct result of the Grynszpan incident, a point of view that I consider intellectually flawed at best.
    You’re entitled to your opinion but the analysis I presented seems to be a fairly mainstream one:
    “The assassination provided Goebbels, Hitler’s Chief of Propaganda, with the excuse he needed to launch a pogrom against German Jews. Grynszpan’s attack was interpreted by Goebbels as a conspiratorial attack by “International Jewry” against the Reich and, symbolically, against the Fuehrer himself.”
    http://www.amuseum.org/shoah/n
    “News of the Third Secretary’s death reached the leading figures of the Nazi party later that day while they were attending a dinner in Munich. Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels delivered an inflammatory speech, urging the assembled crowd to take to the streets. The message was clear: The Jews of Germany would have to pay for vom Rath’s death.”
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/h
    Matityahu – as for the NFC.co.il article, I don’t read Hebrew so I can’t say much about it. But if the story is that the families of “shahids” get paid money then that falls right into the scope of this post. Of course it depends on what the definition of “shahid” is. Is it only suicide bombers as you are trying to portray it, or is it anyone who dies in the course of the Palestine-Israel conflict ?
    Whichever definition is used – does it fundamentally change the argument? No, I don’t think so. Becuase unless there’s some kind of proof that the family conspired in a crime, then they are not guilty unless you subscribe to the theory of Sippenhaft. Nor would payment to harmless widows and orphans constitute an act of war.
    Even if American soldiers in Iraq today commit war crimes, their families will still get death benefits if they are subsequently killed in action.

  28. One other thing I wanted to note –
    It’s interesting that everyone who posted in this thread ignored the Torah and Talmud based argument I supplied from the Chief Rabbi of Britain showing that the punishment of family members for crimes of their relatives is completely contrary to Jewish law and torah values
    Should I take the fact that every single person who commented in this thread ignored it as a sign that they have no possible counter to the Rabbi’s line of reasoning? I’m not sure how else it could be interpreted.

  29. ‘Even if American soldiers in Iraq commit war crimes, their families will still get death benefits if they are subsequently killed in action.’
    That you could somehow equate a US soldier with terrorists just proves my point. I’m not convinced that you are interested in discussing the subject of collective punishment so much as you are looking for another argument which supports your view that Israal has no legitimate right to defend herself or her citizenry from terrorism. I’m always amazed that a hallmark of leftist ideology seems to be that our enemies need not justify themselves, the problem must surely be us.
    ‘…it depends on what the definition of ‘shahid’ is’. How about anyone who dies attacking Israel as a terrorist bomber? That the PA, and by extension you, would lump murderours terrorists with innocents who are killed as a result of this conflict desecrates the innocent dead.
    ‘A sensible terrorist political warfare strategy tries to drive wedges into the enemy society by isolating the groups you will never be able to win over and appealing to as wide a base as possible.’ – James S. Robbins

  30. John:
    I can’t speak for all of the posters, but as for me I haven’t commented on the Chief Rabbi’s piece because I don’t see it as relevant to our discussion. I don’t believe for a moment that the Chief Rabbi had in mind discussions pro and con ‘sippenhaft’ when he wrote what he did. To wit, a piece from the Jewish Chronicle here in the UK just last week.
    “Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks has asked Christian Aid that he be allowed to vet any potentially controversial statements it releases on the Middle East, in response to an initiative by the charity to improve its troubled relationship with British Jewry.
    According to Christian Aid, in a recent meeting with its representatives, Sir Jonathan raised a number of ways he believed the charity could build bridges.
    These included giving his office advance warning if the charity planned to release any contentious statements about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the opportunity to view possibly divisive press releases to try to avoid misunderstandings over the use of language.”
    If I were you, I’d pay a bit more attention to that last sentence.

  31. I also don’t think that the Chief Rabbi would thank you for trying to link his discussion of Ki Tetse and those of Uri Avnery’s diatribe.

  32. Matityahu wrote: “I can’t speak for all of the posters, but as for me I haven’t commented on the Chief Rabbi’s piece because I don’t see it as relevant to our discussion.
    Then I have a hard time believing you actually read it. It was all about how punishing family members of criminals is illegitimate and contrary to the Mosaic laws
    Matityahu continued: “I’m not convinced that you are interested in discussing the subject of collective punishment so much as you are looking for another argument which supports your view that Israal has no legitimate right to defend herself or her citizenry from terrorism.”
    As I wrote earlier in this thread : ” I didn’t say Israel shouldn’t arrest the perpetrators of the terror attack, or fight against Islamic Jihad. I only spoke of the family members and the general Palestinian population “. OF course everyone has the right to self defense, that is a universally accepted principle. However counter-offense is not self defense.
    I can’t see any way that you could portray attacking innocent family members of criminals as being “defense”
    Matityahu continued: “That you could somehow equate a US soldier with terrorists just proves my point. “
    Nice troll. In fact I equated one kind of criminal with another kind of criminal.

  33. I’m coming into this discussion a bit late, but I think there’s an important point that’s been overlooked.
    In general, when dealing with any issue involving justice and national self-defense (which obviously includes the topic of Israel and terrorism), the first question to ask is which category does the situation fall into? Are we discussing
    1) civil justice, that is, non-wartime, non-emergency, ongoing laws and notions of justice, which tend to allow for a more thorough investigation and trial of accused wrongdoers, or
    2) wartime/ emergency situations?
    This distinction is crucial. (It’s possible to argue that the distiction doesn’t exist, but anyone who wants to insist that no modification of civil justice should be allowed during wartime is going up against
    thousands of years of opinion and experience, as well as a consensus (in broad outline, of course) of the entire liberal-centrist-conser vative spectrum. Not to mention common sense.)
    (It should be clear that there exist wildly different notions about what civil law should be, what is allowable during wartime, and how to decide when each applies.)
    (To use a famous example of the distinction, here’s a trivia question. Which US President violated the Constitution most consistently and egregiously? None other than the one widely considered to be the greatest of them all – Lincoln. The quintessential wartime President.)
    The question about Israel’s current situation is especially interesting. Should Israel deal with terrorism on a civil footing, so that terrorists are treated as criminals (full, open, speedy trials, individualized punishment, etc.)? Or can we say that the terrorists and their infrastructure are at war with Israel and its citizens? Is there perhaps some middle ground between the civil and the war positions?
    This post is already too long, so I’ll leave it to others to answer this for now. No one will be surprised that I favor the wartime view.
    John Brown-
    The above should give you some idea of how I would view your Torah-based argument above. (Be aware that no Chief Rabbi today speaks for more than a fraction of the Orthodox world.)
    The item you linked to draws a distinction between G-d’s law and man’s. However, the version of man’s law referred to is clearly that of Jewish Civil Law. It applies only to 1) Jewish civil societies 2) in a civil, not a wartime, setting. Jewish law (like Lincoln, or Grotius, or FDR) is full of exceptions to civil law in time of emergency, including national self-defense. (Jewish courts, for example, were empowered to drastically rachet up Torah-sanctioned punishments for theft where theft was out of control and threatened the basis of society. How much moreso suicide bombers?)
    What are the exact contours of Jewish law in wartime / emergency situations? Hard to say, because the classical writings (Talmud, Rishonim, etc.) are underdeveloped in this area (a result of being written in eras when Jews were stateless). Nevertheless, the item you cite does not apply to self-defense during wartime against non-members of Jewish civil society. (You can, of course, make other arguments, but not from the cited item.)
    And that Kristallnacht analogy- give me a break. For that to hold up, we would need to believe that but for Grynspan, attacks on Jews would not have happened. Any takers? Didn’t think so.

  34. Brown says: “Nice troll.”
    To most of us, it is clear YOU used Nazi imagery when referring to Jews/Israelis (within this post). Assuming we’re trolls, and if this is the schism that separates me from you…than I welcome the title – what term shall we use for Mr. Brown? We need to find a suitable definition for folks who use Nazi imagery when referring to Israel/Zionists/Jews. I can’t think of anything, but if somebody else would like to provide suggestions, I’m listening.

  35. *YAWN* I know what it’s about, and yes I read it to the end. I’ve got a note from my rabbi that says I read it and understand the concepts. What are you invoking, the ‘nanny nanny foo foo’ debating technique?
    The point that I was expressing, and have been since my first post and you clearly haven’t taken on board, is that you were irresponsible to link the Chief Rabbi’s Ki Tetse drash with Uri Avnery’s diatribe. I contend, with a fair degree of certainty, that the Chief Rabbi wouldn’t discuss Ki Tetse in the same breath as Nazi Germany and Stalin as Uri Avnery (and you, by extension) has so recklessly done.
    Your decision to title the piece ‘In Germany they called it ‘Sippenhaft” was reckless and irresponsible if you wanted to have a discussion about what the Mosaic laws says regarding collective punishment.
    Your decision to link the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain and the Commonwealth with the remarks of Uri Avnery was reckless and irresponsible if you wanted to have a discussion about what the Mosaic laws say regarding collective punishment.
    What was your purpose in linking a potential response by the Israeli government to a terrorist atrocity (let’s not forget that they haven’t done ANYTHING yet, but hey…why not jump to conclusions as it makes for much more interesting discussion!) to Nazi Germany and Stalin?
    Irresponsible linking is no way to debate, matey. And as you can’t read Hebrew, here’s a link to the article I referenced just in case you missed it.

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar

  36. Sorry, I should have prefaced my comments ‘in response to John Brown’. I mean no offence or disrespect to shtreimel.

  37. John Brown admits that:
    “I am not a learned Jew”
    “I don’t read Hebrew so I can’t say much about it.”
    Ok, so you don’t read Hebrew and you don’t know much about Judaism. Not too different than most of my Jewish friends. BUT…you seem to have a fetish-like obsession with Israel. A Freudian might postulate tons of unhealthy transference projection. Why would an individual spend so much of their time on a sub-topic (in this case Zionism/Israel) when the overall topic holds little interest for them. Hmmmm.
    At least when Mob wigs out (vis-à-vis his use of German/Nazi ideas), he’s doing so from WITHIN the community i.e. learning and interest.
    As a side…I’d like to mention that I was banned from Little Green Footballs for taking on some of their knuckle-heads for expressing views which were similar in vulgarity, yet contrary to Brown’s.

  38. Shtreimel:
    My point exactly. We can have an intelligent, informed, grown up discussion about the pros and cons of collective punishment without the use of invective or cheap debating techniques like trying to ‘lead’ the listener/reader into making a comparison without explicitly stating the comparison.
    My final opinion is that John Brown should read a little more Chrisopher Hitchens and a little less George Galloway if he wishes to be taken seriously. As it stands right now I don’t really rate his views above anything other than laughably entertaining.

  39. Here in Israel, we’re tired of listening to that type of intellectuality, what, in your opinion (John Brown), would be the best way to stop terrorism here in Israel?
    I mean, you judge us, and there are lots of other people who judge us, but really, how do we stop it?
    Perhaps we’re all wrong, and we should just wait until no more terrorist attacks occur?
    Nonetheless, I appreciate the fact that Jews are able to judge themselves when something is not right, but please, don’t do so in order to merge with your local opinion culture, you don’t have to prove anything to anybody, I hope you will visit Israel for a while, perhaps then you’d understand the situation better.

  40. “I hope you will visit Israel for a while, perhaps then you’d understand the situation better.”
    Perhaps I’m wrong, but my feeling is that if J. Brown every visits/visited Israel, it will be a quick stop over in Tel Aviv, and then a lift into Gaza or the West Bank with ISM.
    Which is fine, but he’d find a nicer folks on Indymedia then Jewschool.

  41. I have to add something,
    So far, we’ve taken two corrupted situations that democracy can constitutionally deal with, like someone here stated,
    which are civil crimes, and war.
    Now, terrorism is a mix of both, it is related to war because the attacks come from an ideological source, i.e a person who commits terrorist attacks does so because they want to destabalize a government and not just because they are psychos or corrupted.
    It is also related to civil crimes because of the responsibility, after all, those are individual groups who commit those acts and not a government or an authority.
    A fixed democracy cannot easily deal with terrorism because there is no source to overthrow those acts.
    Can we arrest and judge the individual? or should we go on a total war against the nation, taking the terrorist as their government issue and their acts as a declaration of war?
    The bottom line is, in order to clean mud, you need to get a little dirty, that’s how our world is and forever will be.
    Nazi Germany either made every Jew a criminal or declared war against Jews (let’s put the reasons away).
    The Israeli government, however does not have laws against a nation and is not at war with any nation, it deals with terrorism differently and tries to make it less painful for each side, those comparisons are trying to show corruption and absence of morality from the Israeli government, and as an Israeli citizen, I find it insulting, much like “my country is more democratic than yours”.
    It’s so easy to judge when a sword is not at your neck and you can feel rightous because there is no reason to not be, and let me put this straight, we’re sorrounded by enemies, the only way to survive is to have a strong army and a strong government, and strong government means that war means war and people suffer, we cannot afford to restrain because that means loss (hence sign of weakness).
    And let me quote you:
    “Avihoo Ilan continued: “the truth is that these rather “aggressive” acts from the Israeli government had saved more lives than it could otherwise”
    Do you have some kind of proof for this claim? I have provided evidence to the contrary of what you are saying. ”
    I live here, and everytime our military actually did something about those attacks, people felt safer.
    I am not giving my life for being moral as you are, I simply cannot afford it, sorry.

  42. Avihoo:
    John Brown aside, I think you’ll find that there are far more of us here who are in support of your position and Israel in general than not. In fact, I’m hard pressed to find a post which defends John Brown or his disingenuous and flawed position.
    ’It is the experience of the world that if a man takes a bundle of reeds he is unable to break them while they are tied toegether; but if they are taken singly, even a child can break them’ (Tanchuma Nitzabim I).

  43. Avihoo Ilan wrote: “what, in your opinion (John Brown), would be the best way to stop terrorism here in Israel?”
    Well to be honest, I don’t know if stopping terrorism completely is a realistic goal. I think the best that can be hoped for in the short term is a lessening of terrorism. If completely stopping terrorism were possible, I would think that the assassination of Rabin could have been prevented for instance. But there will always be crazy people, as there will always be murderers and other kinds of civil criminals.
    The idea of completely stopping terrorism makes me think of the prison systems in the US. Despite metal detectors everywhere, strip searches, looking in people’s mouths and rear-ends for contraband, and cameras everywhere… it doesn’t stop violence, smuggled weapons and smuggled drugs. The point being, you can make things incredibly secure to the point that there is no freedom left at all, spy on everyone and still it won’t make things completely safe.
    But as far as reducing terrorism I think that would certainly be possible. And I think it should be possible to greatly reduce terrorism to the point where supporters of terror will be marginalized in Palestinian society, and the majority will become focused on building the Palestinian state and bettering themselves.
    Personally I think that the top steps that could be taken would be:
    1) implement the Geneva accords
    2) accept the Saudi peace proposal, gaining recognition of Israel from the Arab League nations
    3) finish the separation fence along the path of a negotiated border

  44. Not surprisingly none of your ‘top steps’ you favour John, have anything to do with the PA taking responsibility for reigining in terrorism and ceasing incitement amongst the Palestinian population.
    The PA is culpable and has a responsibility to end terrorism and incitement as poltical tools. I think we’ve exhausted your ‘sippenhaft’ theory sufficiently.

  45. Matityahu wrote: “Not surprisingly none of your ‘top steps’ you favour John, have anything to do with the PA taking responsibility for reigining in terrorism and ceasing incitement amongst the Palestinian population. “
    Actually you’re wrong – Not only is that included, it is in item #1 on the list – implement the Geneva accord. See “Article 5 – Security”

  46. John:
    That said, giving some balance to your assertions you may wish to consider a Palestinian response to the Geneva accords.
    “It has been widely asserted by the Zionist “left” and others that the accords offer a way forward and a change in direction. Such an assertion is nonsense. It is clear that the accords aim to legalise and make permanent a dependent patchwork of Palestinian cantons that will be a state in name only. It is a direct continuation of policy initiated in 1967, aimed at controlling the land without the direct political and economic costs of overt military occupation…
    The clear rejection of the Geneva process by the Palestinian population — reflected in the fact that Yasser Arafat could not openly endorse the accords — means that resistance to the Israeli occupation will continue. The current intifada was a rejection of precisely the same politics as those promoted by the accords.” – Ahmad Nimer, PMC, The Green Left Weekly, January 21, 2004
    Interesting that, isn’t it? Any other ideas?

  47. Arafat’s dead man. And when Sharon is gone – maybe – as long as someone like Netanyahu doesn’t take over – there will be a chance for peace. Sharon has never negotiated with the Palestinians, or the Syrians when they made overtures or the Saudis over their proposal, and I get the feeling he never will.

  48. John:
    Sharon has stated that he won’t negotiate under fire, and I can’t say that I blame him.
    ‘The current intifada was a rejection of precisely the same politics as those promoted by the accords.’
    Admit it, John. What is truy unaccepatable is that the PA is using terrorism as a political expression. We should recognise terrorism for what it is; murder of innocents. This behaviour should be condemned, not entertained with a discussion of why Israel should or should not respond in a particular manner. For the record, I don’t think any of your doomsday response has occured as yet has it?
    Commentary on ‘sippenhaft’ is vacuous and drawing parallels to Nazi Germany and Stalin is irresponsible when discussing matters regarding Israel’s respone to terrorism.

  49. Matityahu – Israel is not under fire from Syria’s army, nor from the Saudis or any country in the Arab League, with the exception of the PLO, yet he doesn’t negotiate ever. And the man is way old. He’s had plenty of chances to show that he’s a partner for peace for someone, anyone. But that’s just not in his nature – you can’t teach an old dog new tricks, as the saying goes.
    As far as condemning the behavior, the only way I referred to the bombing was “this horrible act of terrorism”. But those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, and if Israel’s response to terrorism is a counter attack of terrorism that means we live in a glass house.
    Matityahu continued: “For the record, I don’t think any of your doomsday response has occured as yet has it? “
    You’re going to tell me house demolitions and collective punishment haven’t happened ? When a government that’s bulldozed 10k houses asks for permission to demolish more, I take them at their word.
    Matityahu concluded: “Commentary on ‘sippenhaft’ is vacuous and drawing parallels to Nazi Germany and Stalin is irresponsible when discussing matters regarding Israel’s respone to terrorism.”
    Well, write a letter to Uri Avnery and tell him that’s what you think of his parallel. He grew up in Germany and has a different point of view. For the record I still think the comparison is perfectly valid – and I haven’t heard any real reason why it isn’t other than “b-b-b-but you can’t say that when it’s Jews doing it !!!!”

  50. John:
    I think that I’ve argued and presented my views well enough. Every time you are cornered on a particular point of order you decide to change the argument.
    This is boring me now, but for instance…
    ‘You’re going to tell me house demolitions and collective punishment haven’t happened ? When a government that’s bulldozed 10k houses asks for permission to demolish more, I take them at their word.’
    Yeah, and I said waaaaaay at the beginning of my posts that for the sake of argument we should wait to SEE the reaction of the Israeli government before we go jumping to conclusions and whip out comparisons with ‘sippenhaft’ and the like. It’s interesting to me that you pull out the Chief Rabbi’s excellent discourse on Ki Tetse erroneously as support for your position and try to lecture me and others on innocence until proven guilty et al, and yet you can’t seem to bring yourself to afford this respect to Israelis and the Israeli government. Innocent until proven guilty seems to be a concept you are only willing to afford to one side, the Palestinians. And I find that intellectually dishonest, so I called you on it.
    I don’t need to write Uri Avnery a letter. He didn’t post his comments on Jewschool. YOU did. So you have to take responsibility for that, and for those of us who think that it was grossly irresponsible and asinine to do so.
    You haven’t heard any ‘real’ reason why the comparison isn’t valid because you’ve chosen not to. I dont think that you have ever been truly interested in hearing anyone elses point of view, you’re just trying to convert us to your ideology. Come to think of it, that was probably your reason for posting the article in the first place.
    It musn’t be true unless John Brown says it is.

  51. “Matityahu – Israel is not under fire from Syria’s army, nor from the Saudis or any country in the Arab League”
    Excuse me, but what were those attacks from Hizbulla in the northern borders?
    The English used to hire pirates (known as privateers) to maim, rob and conquer Spanish colonies in the Caribbeans, so yes, the authoroties didn’t take responsiblity for the attacks, but it still was supported by England.
    The same occurs here, Syria funds and supports Hizbulla so they could attack Israel, usually in order to kidnap Israeli soldiers.
    So on the paper, we’re not at war with Syria, but somehow there is tense in the northern border… hmm, I wonder why?!
    I mean, if things were so calm, we wouldn’t need a big military, would we?
    Finally, I find your misunderstanding of Israeli politics and history irritating, Sharon was the one who evacuated Gaza, on the other hand, Rabin (nonetheless I respect the person who sacrificed so much) armed the Palestinian forces so they could rule their people, he didn’t have in mind that those acts are a sign of weakness (yes, again, isn’t it funny how history repeats itself?) and actually, this caused more havoc in the Palestinian authority and brought way more terrorist activities.
    I don’t see a point to negotiate peace with Syria or Saudi-Arabia, they are both countries which has no degree of democracy, and peace with them is written only on the paper.
    And what’s with “you can’t teach an old dog new tricks”?
    Do you know how much change was it for Ariel Sharon to become the person who evacuated Gaza?
    Like I mentioned before, we care more about security and less about peace, since peace only worths it when people feel safe.
    I am sure that if Israel cuts its army size by half, it would be its last day.
    “To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace” (George Washington, 1790).

  52. One final note, John:
    I’d be interested to know how you came to take the information in JapanToday listed below as it appears below:
    “Israel’s Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz is seeking legal approval to reverse a ban on demolishing the family homes of suicide bombers, arguing that such a measure has a substantial deterrent effect.”
    And then changed it into what you posted in your article:
    “Israel’s Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz is seeking legal approval from Israel’s Attorney General to reverse a ban on illegally demolishing the family homes of suicide bombers, arguing that such a measure has a substantial deterrent effect.”
    See the difference? Your insertion of the word ‘illegally’ changes the context and wasn’t in the original JapanToday article. I’d call that intellectual dishonesty, but I suppose you would call it artistic license?
    The additional sources you cite from Ha’aretz, AP, and Ynet contain no references to the demolishing of houses in response to the terrorist atrocity. In fact, Ha’aretz DID have this to report:
    “We decided to operate in a much broader, much deeper and more intensive manner against the Islamic Jihad infrastructure, and I hope that we will be able to prevent such attacks in the future,” Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told Army Radio after a late-night meeting of security officials on Monday.
    Mindful of the ongoing truce with Hamas and the upcoming Palestinian legislative elections, an Israeli security official said the IDF response to the attack “will be a show of strength but not something that will get out of control.”
    Interestingly, you chose not to include any of this. It’s difficult to have a mature and frank discussion about collective punishment when you post erroneous and intentionally misleading source information.

  53. Besides what has been said above, re the Saudi initiative – while the original proposal might have been worth negotiating on, by the time the Arab League finished with it, it was in a form which left nothing for Israel to negotiate on (primarily, by inserting a insistence on the right of return and by removing normalization from the agenda).

  54. Brown says:
    “and if Israel’s response to terrorism is a counter attack of terrorism”
    “For the record I still think the comparison is perfectly valid”
    Feh, you’re all too kind. I’ll just come out and say it…Brown, you’re nauseating.

  55. Brown says:
    “Israel is not under fire from Syria’s army, nor from the Saudis or any country in the Arab League, with the exception of the PLO”
    Today the Iranian President says:
    ‘”Although we don’t accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, we ask the Europeans: Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler the reason for their support to the occupiers of Jerusalem?” he continued.
    “If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe — like in Germany, Austria or other countries — to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it.”‘
    If Sharon can’t be taught “new tricks” there’s a reason.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.