Terwijl een paar jaar geleden is besloten te stoppen met het vernietigen met de huizen van terroristen na een aanslag, wil Israël deze praktijk nu weer invoeren, zij het wel alleen op Israëlisch grondgebied, dus niet in de bezette gebieden. Argument is o.a. dat men plegers van aanslagen die in Israël of Oost-jeruzalem wonen extra zwaar aanrekent dat zij hun eigen land, waar zij vele rechten genieten, zo benadelen. Machteloosheid is helaas ook een motivatie:
A series of High Court of Justice rulings state there is no guarantee that the method is effective. However, given "the few means at the state's disposal to defend itself against living bombs, it cannot be scorned," the court has stated.
De praktijk is eerder afgeschaft omdat het niet effectief was, en het potentiële aanvallers niet afschrikte, noch hun familieleden ertoe bracht beter op te letten of manlief of een van de kinderen zich niet vreemd gedroeg. De enige rechtvaardiging lijkt te zijn dat als de familie daadwerkelijk van de plannen wist, zij medeplichtig is aan de daad door dit niet bij de politie te melden en dus strafbaar is. Het Hooggerechtshof heeft deze voorkennis bij familieleden dan ook als voorwaarde gesteld voor de vernieling van het huis, maar het lijkt me lastig dit te bewijzen. Het zou beter zijn als de familieleden worden aangeklaagd voor voorkennis van de aanslag zonder deze te melden, en vervolgens eventueel worden veroordeeld volgens het Israëlische strafrecht.
The High Court will not approve a demolition if it is convinced it constitutes disproportionate and unreasonable harm to the family of the terrorist. And in recent years, the High Court has shown increasing willingness to intervene in security considerations.
Wat is 'disproportionate and unreasonable harm'? Als je huis wordt vernield sta je op straat. Het enige dat zoiets de ene keer onredelijk en de andere keer tot redelijk zou kunnen maken, is wederom de vraag of de familieleden wisten van de plannen en hebben geprobeerd die te voorkomen.
RP
----------
Haaretz / July 4, 2008
Legal Analysis / Family can appeal demolition
Legal Analysis / Family can appeal demolition
Following the terror attack in Jerusalem this week, the cabinet is considering resuming house demolitions, including the East Jerusalem homes of terrorists. The authority to demolish homes has existed on local law books since 1945, requires no due process, and also applies to houses inside Israeli territory.
The state has said in the past that house demolition is a critical means of pressuring Palestinian families to prevent acts of terror.
A series of High Court of Justice rulings state there is no guarantee that the method is effective. However, given "the few means at the state's disposal to defend itself against living bombs, it cannot be scorned," the court has stated.
The Supreme Court has avoided commenting on the efficacy or wisdom of the means, and addressed only its constitutionality. The rulings state that demolition cannot be used as a punishment.
Nonetheless, the High Court has consistently rejected appeals against house demolition and accepted defense establishment arguments that it is a preventive measure designed to deter potential terrorists, and stated that family members' prior knowledge of planned attacks is "a mandatory precondition to applying the military authority to demolish."
In any case, it is evident that a house cannot be demolished, in contrast to being sealed off, without giving the family the opportunity to be heard by the High Court of Justice. The court already has ruled that house demolition does not contradict the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Freedom.
The High Court will not approve a demolition if it is convinced it constitutes disproportionate and unreasonable harm to the family of the terrorist. And in recent years, the High Court has shown increasing willingness to intervene in security considerations.
The state has said in the past that house demolition is a critical means of pressuring Palestinian families to prevent acts of terror.
A series of High Court of Justice rulings state there is no guarantee that the method is effective. However, given "the few means at the state's disposal to defend itself against living bombs, it cannot be scorned," the court has stated.
The Supreme Court has avoided commenting on the efficacy or wisdom of the means, and addressed only its constitutionality. The rulings state that demolition cannot be used as a punishment.
Nonetheless, the High Court has consistently rejected appeals against house demolition and accepted defense establishment arguments that it is a preventive measure designed to deter potential terrorists, and stated that family members' prior knowledge of planned attacks is "a mandatory precondition to applying the military authority to demolish."
In any case, it is evident that a house cannot be demolished, in contrast to being sealed off, without giving the family the opportunity to be heard by the High Court of Justice. The court already has ruled that house demolition does not contradict the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Freedom.
The High Court will not approve a demolition if it is convinced it constitutes disproportionate and unreasonable harm to the family of the terrorist. And in recent years, the High Court has shown increasing willingness to intervene in security considerations.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten