From: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Subject: Re: Name of Palestinian Deportees (part i)
Reply-To: makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky)
Organization: Arizona State University, Tempe AZ
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:51:35 GMT

In article <EGGERTJ.93Jan5110057@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:

# In article <1993Jan5.033013.3849@ennews.eas.asu.edu> makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu (David Makowsky) writes:

# >   In article <1993Jan5.021540.27084@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> abde@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Tamer A. Abdelgawad) writes:

# >   # The only message this sends is that the Israeli government has no regard
# >   # for the personal rights of Palestinians under occupation (I am not making
# >   # a general statement here, just what message this action sends).

# >	   Wrong.  It sends the message that it will use stronger methods to
# >   protect Israeli lives.  Unfortunately, since so few were deported, it
# >   also sends the message that it is somewhat tentative in taking bold
# >   but necessary actions.
 
# There is no indication that the deportation has protected or will
# protect Israeli lives.

	I agree that a deportation of such a small and insignificant
number will not protect many lives.

# Indeed, there is every indication that the
# Israeli authorities expected the deportation to cost Israeli lives.
# I quote a recent news release:

# |        But Rabin has been unapologetic about the mass expulsion and military
# | commanders said they have been expecting reprisals.
# |        ``No one who decided on the deportations imagined that terrorist
# | activity would stop on that day,'' said Maj. Gen. Danny Rothschild,
# | coordinator of Israel's military government in the occupied West Bank
# | and Gaza Strip.
# |        ``We were expecting the terrorist organizations would try to prove
# | they still exist,'' he said at a Tel Aviv news conference.

	That may have been the view of one member of the military, or more
than one member.  It may have even been the view held by the
politicians.  But it may also be an after the fact type statement
which may not have been the prevailing view at the time the
deportations were ordered.

# Because the deportees were not put on trial for any crime, one can
# conclude that they were not individually demonstrably culpable of a
# crime sufficiently grievous to warrant prolonged incarceration.

	Even if the above statement is correct (I am not debating it
either way in this article) in terms of criminal culpability, given
the threat by Hamas during this war the deportations are still
justified.

	And to the best of my knowledege, none were incarcerated.  They
have freedom of movement outside Israel.  And of those who are not
members of Hamas and will be allowed back, many will not go back
because they face incarceration.

# The deportation has the hallmarks of a political action meant not to
# punish criminals (for there were no trials proving criminality), not

	Just because there were no tirals does not mean they are not
criminals.

# to protect society (for the deportees are not likely the actual
# terrorists at all),

	That statement, even if true (and for some it may not have been)
would not have been true for long since they are members of Hamas.

# and not to aid Israel's stature in world affairs
# (for other nations and the UN and the EC agree that the deportations
# were illegal).

	Those are PLITICAL, NOT LEGAL statements.  As it is, about the
only way for Israel to aid her stature in world affairs would be to
commit acts of national suicide.

# Why then were the deportations committed?  It was a political action
# that had two purposes:  It was meant first and foremost to satisfy the
# Israeli public's demands for action, for response to the terrorist
# attacks on Israeli soldiers in the Occupied Territories.

	To some extent this is true.

# And second
# it was meant to decapitate the accessible political and prominent
# Palestinian figures in the Occupied Territories.

	Actually, I thought the leftist parties supported it because they
were promised that after expelling Hamas, talks would begin with the
PLO.

# In my reading of the history of deportations, these have been the
# hallmarks of many of them.  The deportation of the West Bank mayors,
# for example, was not because they were criminals, but rather because
# they made speeches that were politically unacceptable to the Israeli
# occupiers.

	Those speeches, and what they encouraged, made them criminals.

# Israel has even deported Israelis for political activity.
 
# The argument that the deportations are legal because of the uncertain
# status of the Occupied Territories is full of holes.  Israel
# recognized Jordan's sovereignty over the West Bank until the 1967 war,
# making its legal status quite certain under Israeli law.  If you don't
# believe me, ask Israeli High Court Justice Chaim Cohen.

	Assuming Chaim Cohen believed that, how does that make it Israeli
policy?  However, they are legal for other reasons (which I have
posted in the past).  At any rate, a government's first obligation is
to protect the state.  International law is at best a distant second.

# >	   Call it what you want, but the first priority of any government is
# >   to protect the state.  COnsiderations of an enemies possible rights to
# >   due process can only come afterwards.

# This statement is fascism.  It doesn't just sound fascist, it _is_
# fascism.  The first priority of a democratic government is to its
# subjects, not to itself.

	I am not going to debate whether or not it is facist, excpet to
say that if it is, it is one of the (few, if not the only) redeeming
values of facism.

	As to t, wst sentence, when I said the state, I meant its
citizens, not the government itself.
--
	There are three types of people in the world.  Those that are good
at math and those that are not.

makowsky@enuxhb.eas.asu.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.arabic