From: niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent)
Subject:  Re: Israel's deportation of over 400 Palestinians
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 09:10:54 GMT

I'm going to add my $.02 -- why not?  Everyone else does.

I think the deportations were illegal.  Not because of the Geneva
conventions, but because they ignored things like Due Process.

But, as well as being illegal, the deportations were stupid.  They
do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to solve *any* of the problems of Israel.

The *only* purpose for the deportations was political -- Rabin was under
pressure to do something in response to the killings, so he did.

Look at it from this point of view:

Are the deportations likely to deter future killings?  No.  They're more
likely to *incite* killings.

Are the deportations likely to help make progress in the peace talks?
No, quite the opposite.  They're likely to damage the peace process.

Are the deportations likely to help Israel in the view of the world?
No, of course not.  They're just likely to damage Israel's reputation again.

Therefore, do the deportations make Israel more secure?  No.  The 400
alleged HAMAS members are a drop in the bucket.  It isn't as if these
400 people make up the vast majority of the violent wing of the
Palestinian side (not to mention that there isn't even any evidence 
presented that these people *are* actually violent.

Furthermore, this whole secrecy and lack of trial thing offends my
sensibilities.

I know people on this thread have been saying, "But this is war; courts
and due process can't apply here."  Sorry, I don't buy it.  I don't accept
that war allows governments to do whatever they feel like to ensure
security; there are still some limitations on their activities.  Not to
mention that it sets a bad precedent to violate civil liberties of
*anyone* at any time.  

(Basically, I view this as pretty analagous to the US interment of
Japanese-Americans during WW2, actually.  The government there, too,
said there was an imminent security threat because a war was going on.
Many of the people arguing this may even have believed it sincerely.  It
didn't make the actions right, however.)

Furthermore, while a state of war does exist, that doesn't make the
claim precisely accurate that "this is war."  

There is nothing impeding the courts from acting in this case; it would
be different if tanks were overrunning Israel and Israel needed to make
sure there were no 5th columnists which could hurt Israeli defenses.
But there aren't; Israel would be in no worse shape if it arrested these
400 people and put them on trial.

But all that is, again, almost an aside.  If I thought that these
actions might help Israeli security, I'd have to give them more careful
consideration; maybe there could be a way of justifying them.  But I
don't think they do this at all.  I think they *hurt* Israeli security
in the long run, without even helping it in the short run.


I'm willing to listen to and consider logical arguments against this 
position, but not ranting and raving from any side.

-- 
David M. Nieporent   | Is it too early to start making predictions for 1993?
niepornt@phoenix.    | Probably, but that never stopped me before.
   princeton.edu     | ALE: Baltimore ALW: Chicago NLE: Montreal NLW: Atlanta
Baltimore Orioles 93 | AL MVP: Cal Ripken  AL Cy Young: Mike Mussina
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast