| 17/11/04 | JPN: Report on Israel's Home Demolitions and American Vets |
| Resisting Recall
www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/about/aboutjvp.html November 17, 2004 Click ga3.org/ct/G7aKtJ11gBVz/ here to let your friends know about JPN. Jewish Voice for Peace needs your support. We are hard at work trying to expand our reach, to create JVP chapters around the country, to escalate our educational and media services like JPN and pushing forward with our Caterpillar Campaign. We can only do all of this with your help. https://secure.ga3.org/03/donate/nzpaKtJ11jQH4 Click here to donate now and help keep services like Jewish Peace News coming to you. With the death of Yasir Arafat, there have been many articles about him. ga3.org/ct/FpaKtJ11gBVM/ Click here for JVP's quick review of Arafat's life. The views expressed here are those of the editors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jewish Voice for Peace. Today's Contents: <> Through No Fault of Their Own: Israel's Punitive House Demolitions in the al-Aqsa Intifada (B'Tselem) Israeli human rights group reports on house demolitions <> Former G.I.'s, Ordered to War, Fight Not to Go (New York Times) American vets resist being recalled for the war on Iraq [JPN Commentary: Many groups, including JVP, have raised the issue of home demolitions for years. The following report by the Israeli human rights group, B'Tselem, details the depth and breadth of this crime. Israel has destroyed some 4,100 homes in the Occupied Territories in the past four years. Even according to the Israeli government, only 15% of those were carried out because of an attack on Israelis. In that category, Israel does not distinguish between attacks on soldiers and attacks on civilians. And of that 15%, nearly half never housed anyone who carried out an attack against Israelis. When considering the information in B'Tselem's report, which is summarized below (the full text can be found <ga3.org/ct/F1aKtJ11gBVL/>here), we should be asking ourselves how we would feel if our home was demolished because of the actions of a relative. And then how we would feel if our homes were demolished without due process simply because of building code violations or because the house is in a place the government wants. – MP] Through No Fault of Their Own: Israel's Punitive House Demolitions in the al-Aqsa Intifada B'tselem <> www.btselem.org/English/Publications/Summaries/ Principle findings: Since the beginning of the al-Aqsa intifada, the IDF has demolished 628 housing units, which were home to 3,983 persons. These homes were demolished because of the acts of 333 Palestinians. On average, 12 innocent people lost their home for every person suspected of participation in attacks against Israelis. Almost half of the homes demolished (295 – 47%) were never home to anyone suspected of involvement in attacks against Israelis. As a result of these demolitions, 1,286 persons lost their homes even though according to Israeli officials they should not have been punished. Contrary to its argument before the High Court of Justice that prior warning is given except in extraordinary cases, B'Tselem's figures indicate that in only 3% of the cases were occupants given prior notification of the IDF's intention to demolish their home. Extensive destruction of property in occupied territories, without military necessity, constitutes a war crime. Three Different Kinds of House Demolitions Over the last four years, Israel has demolished some 4,100 Palestinian homes in the Occupied Territories. About sixty percent of the demolitions were carried out in the framework of what Israel calls “clearing operations.” Some twenty-five percent were destroyed because Israel claims they were built without permit. The remaining fifteen percent were demolished as a means to punish the families and neighbors of Palestinians suspected of involvement in carrying out attacks against Israelis. These punitive demolitions are the focus of this report. Punitive Demolitions Over the Years Israel has demolished Palestinian houses as a punitive measure since the beginning of the occupation in 1967. The extent of such demolitions has varied over the years: From 1967 to the outbreak of the first intifada, in December 1987, Israel demolished or sealed at least 1,387 housing units, most in the first few years following occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Following the outbreak of the first intifada, Israel dramatically increased its use of house demolitions as a punishment. From 1988-1992, Israel completely demolished 431 housing units and partially demolished fifty-nine. From 1993 to 1997, Israel completely demolished eighteen housing units and partially demolished three units. From 1998 to October 2001, Israel did not demolish or seal any houses as punishment. In the course of the al-Aqsa intifada, Israel renewed with increased vigor its use of punitive house demolitions. As part of this policy, Israel demolished 628 homes from October 2001 to 20 September 2004. The official decision to renew the policy of punitive demolitions was made at a meeting of the Political-Security Cabinet on 31 July 2002, about nine months after the policy began in practice. This report analyzes Israel's policy during this period. Punishing the Innocent as Official Policy The declared purpose of the punitive house demolitions is to deter potential attackers, by harming the relatives of Palestinians suspected of attacks against Israelis. Testimonies given to B'Tselem indicate that security forces occasionally use the threat of demolition to convince relatives of wanted persons to cooperate and turn over their relatives. Israel's policy has left This measure does not directly harm the suspects themselves, who at the time of the demolition are not living in the house. According to B'Tselem's statistics, thirty-two percent of the suspected offenders were in detention at the time of demolition, twenty-one percent were “wanted,” and forty-seven percent were dead. In addition, in many instances the IDF also destroyed houses adjacent to the house that was the target for demolition. These cases involved both apartments in the same building as the suspect's apartment, and adjacent buildings. B'Tselem's research indicates that in some cases the IDF explicitly intended to destroy the nearby houses. Yet, even if the IDF did not intend to damage nearby houses, the fact that there have been many such cases makes the lack of intention irrelevant. Since the beginning of the al-Aqsa intifada, the IDF demolished 295 such adjacent homes (about one-half of all homes demolished), in which 1,286 persons lived. However, statements made by the IDF Spokesperson's Office following demolitions always mention one house, that in which the relevant individual lived, as the residence that was demolished. Reason for Demolition: Not Just Suicide Bombings The text of the decision made by the Political-Security Cabinet and reports in the media give the impression that Israel's policy is directed only against Palestinians who were directly involved in attacks that caused many Israeli casualties. Yet in practice, Israel demolishes houses in response to involvement in any attempted violent act against Israelis, regardless of the results: from suicide bombings that leave many casualties to “failed” attacks against soldiers. Furthermore, the demolitions are aimed not only at the perpetrators, but also against the homes of individuals with any level of involvement in such attacks, either in the planning, the dispatching of the persons who carried out the attacks, or by providing assistance of some kind. According to B'Tselem's figures, sixty-six percent of the demolitions were directed at the families of suspects who carried out attacks, while the remaining thirty-four percent were directed at those involved in other ways. In forty percent of the Palestinian attacks because of which the suspects' homes were destroyed, no Israeli was killed. No Prior Warning Contrary to prior practice, since the policy was renewed in 2001, the IDF has generally not issued a demolition order, and has not given prior warning to the occupants before demolishing their home. The IDF gave prior warning in only seventeen cases, representing three percent of the total. Most of the demolitions take place at night, and the occupants are given only a few minutes to remove their possessions from the house. Causing Severe Physical and Mental Harm Testimonies given to B'Tselem indicate that the harm suffered by families affects almost all aspects of life: disruption of the family unit, as some families are forced to split up and live separately; sharp decline in the standard of living, as a result of the loss of property, even after the family finds substitute housing; and feelings of dependence and instability as a result of the loss of their home, which is more than just a place to provide shelter. Research on the psychological effects indicates that house demolitions have a substantial post-traumatic effect, primarily on children. Violation of the Right to Housing The right to adequate housing is well enshrined in international law. The right to housing is important because it is a prerequisite for the exercise of other rights, among them the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and the right to family life. The right to housing is a vital component of the protection of the rights of children, who are entitled to special protection in international law. As the force in control in the Occupied Territories, Israel is required to respect the Palestinians' right to housing. War Crime The Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits the occupying state from destroying the property of civilians in occupied territory, “except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.” Israeli officials have argued that its policy falls within this exception. However, this contention is baseless. Israel's interpretation of “military operations” contradicts the official commentary of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which defines “military operation” as “the movement, maneuvers, and actions of any sort, carried out by the armed forces with a view to combat.” Punitive demolitions are not conducted in the framework of “movements” or “maneuvers” of IDF forces, and are not carried out in the context of hostilities. The action cannot, therefore, be deemed a “military operation” within the meaning of the term in the Geneva Convention. In some cases at least, Israel argues that the demolitions are lawful in that they are carried out pursuant to Section 119 of the Emergency Defense Regulations, which were enacted during the British Mandate. Section 119 is a draconian provision that allows a house to be demolished based on suspicion that certain offenses have been committed. The house does not have to belong to the suspects themselves, but can be the home of their family, neighbors, and other residents in the community. The applicability of Section 119 is questionable: it was revoked by the British before the Mandate ended. However, even if the British did not revoke it, Section 119 should be nullified because it violates international humanitarian law. Relying on Section 119, the High Court of Justice rejected these arguments and adopted, time after time, the state's contention that the punitive house demolitions are lawful. Collective Punishment Israel's policy not only infringes the right to housing, it also breaches one of the most fundamental principles of justice: the prohibition on punishing a person for acts committed by another. The prohibition of collective punishment is especially stringent when the victims are children. The Fourth Geneva absolutely prohibits collective punishment without exception. The Hague Regulations, on the other hand, recognize a narrow exception to this prohibition. The exception applies when occupants of the house intended for demolition knew or could foresee the act for which the army intends to demolish the house, and had the opportunity to prevent it. Despite this, state officials have often declared that prior knowledge or responsibility is not a precondition for the legality of the demolition. In the few cases in which the High Court addressed the question of indirect responsibility of family members for failing to prevent an attack, the justices relied on baseless assumptions to determine that the relatives knew about the attack during the planning stage. This approach is completely inconsistent with the High Court's handling of the identical offense known in Israeli law as “failure to prevent a felony,” which calls for an extremely heavy burden of proof, in which the prosecution must prove that the defendant had positive, concrete, immediate, and significant information that a felony was about to occur. Israel further argues that house demolitions are not punishment, but rather a means of deterrence. Therefore, the state contends, the act does not comprise collective punishment and thus does not violate international humanitarian law. The High Court accepted the state's argument by making an analogy between house demolition and incarceration of the head of a family, which also harms the family. However, the comparison is flawed. The purpose of imprisonment is to deny certain rights to the offender. The suffering of his family is only a by-product which is not necessary to achieve the objective of the imprisonment. Denying the Right to Due Process Finally, demolition of houses is an administrative procedure based solely on suspicion, in which the occupants are denied the right to due process of law. Since the policy was renewed in 2001, Israeli has further denied due process by denying victims of the policy the fundamental right to plead their case to the authorities before the demolition is carried out. Israel justifies its failure to give prior warning on the grounds that the warning is “liable to endanger our forces, and cause the action to fail, because warning will enable the enemy to booby-trap the houses scheduled to be demolished, ambush our troops taking part in the action, and the like.” This justification is baseless. At least as far as the West Bank is concerned, the IDF has effective control throughout the area, and is constantly present in almost all the cities, villages, and refugee camps. Also, making demolitions an openly declared policy enables some families to anticipate the demolition of their home. Following recent suicide attacks, the Israeli media reported that the IDF intended to demolish the houses of the persons who carried out the attacks. Thus, the state can no longer justify denial of the right to be heard on the need to preserve the element of surprise. B'Tselem demands that the government of Israel immediately cease the policy of demolishing houses as a means of punishment, and compensate Palestinians whose homes have been demolished as a result of this policy. [JPN Commentary: In this front-page article from today's New York Times, we see that a new pool of would-be draftees are refusing their orders to report to the U.S. military. Of 4,000 soldiers called up through the Individual Ready Reserve, 1800 have already requested exemptions. The Individual Ready Reserve is not part-time soldiers like those in the National Guard or the regular reserves; these are former soldiers who are not on the military payroll and do not train. Many of those quoted in this article believe that their obligations to the military ended, in some cases years ago. A number of these people (all men in the article) have sued the army to gain exemptions. The lawyer representing one of the men notes, importantly, that saying no to the military requires money, contacts, and certainty. How many more people would refuse to be called up if they had these? This article builds on the picture we're gaining of both the backdoor draft to the U.S. wars and the growing objection among soldiers and would-be soldiers to the orders they are given. As citizens, as friends and neighbors and relatives of soldiers, and perhaps as soldiers ourselves, we need to pay close attention to those fighting not to serve. Spreading their word and welcoming their refusal is one way to support them. – SAM] Former G.I.'s, Ordered to War, Fight Not to Go November 16, 2004 By MONICA DAVEY ga3.org/ct/-1aKtJ11gBVN/ www.nytimes.com/2004/11/16/national/16reserves.html The Army has encountered resistance from more than 2,000 former soldiers it has ordered back to military work, complicating its efforts to fill gaps in the regular troops. Many of these former soldiers – some of whom say they have not trained, held a gun, worn a uniform or even gone for a jog in years – object to being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan now, after they thought they were through with life on active duty. They are seeking exemptions, filing court cases or simply failing to report for duty, moves that will be watched closely by approximately 110,000 other members of the Individual Ready Reserve, a corps of soldiers who are no longer on active duty but still are eligible for call-up. In the last few months, the Army has sent notices to more than 4,000 former soldiers informing them that they must return to active duty, but more than 1,800 of them have already requested exemptions or delays, many of which are still being considered. And, of about 2,500 who were due to arrive on military bases for refresher training by Nov. 7, 733 had not shown up. Army officials say the call-up is proceeding at rates they anticipated, and they are trying to fill needed jobs with former soldiers as they did in the Persian Gulf war of 1991. Still, the resistance puts further strain on a military that has summoned reserve troops in numbers not seen since World War II and forced thousands of soldiers in Iraq to postpone their departures when their enlistment obligations ended. Tensions are flaring between the Army and some of its veterans, who say they are surprised and confused about their obligations and unsure where to turn. “I consider myself a civilian,” said Rick Howell, a major from Tuscaloosa, Ala., who said he thought he had left the Army behind in 1997 after more than a decade flying helicopters. “I've done my time. I've got a brand new baby and a wife, and I haven't touched the controls of an aircraft in seven years. I'm 47 years old. How could they be calling me? How could they even want me?” Some former soldiers acknowledge that the Army has every right to call them back, but argue that their personal circumstances – illness, single parenthood, financial woes – make going overseas impossible now. Others say they do not believe they are eligible to be returned to active duty because, they contend, they already finished the obligations they signed up for when they joined the military. A handful of such former soldiers, scattered across the country, have filed lawsuits making that claim in federal courts. These former soldiers are not among the part-time soldiers – reservists and National Guard members – who receive paychecks and train on weekends, and who have been called up in large numbers over the last three years. Instead, these are members of the Individual Ready Reserve, a pool of former soldiers seldom ordered back to work. Ordinarily, these former soldiers do not get military pay, nor do they train. They receive points toward a military retirement and an address form to update once a year. When soldiers enlist, they typically agree to an eight-year commitment to the Army but often are allowed to end active duty sooner. Some of them join the Reserves or National Guard to complete their commitment; others finish their time in the Individual Ready Reserve. For officers, the commitment does not expire unless they formally resign their commissions in writing, a detail some insist they did not know and were not told when they signed their contracts, although Army officials strongly dispute that. Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, a spokeswoman for the Army, said people in the service are well aware of the provision. “We all know about it,” Colonel Hart said. She said problems with the call-ups of former soldiers have involved a relatively small number of people, are being worked out, and are hardly unique to this conflict. In the first gulf war, she said, more than 20,000 former soldiers were called up. With medical problems and no-shows, only about 14,400 were actually deployed, she said. Most of the deployments in the first gulf war lasted 120 days, the Army said. The current call-ups are more likely to last a year. Of those seeking exemptions now, the Army is studying each person's case individually, Colonel Hart said, and has no set rule on what allows a person to avoid deployment. Army officials are still weighing more than half of the requests. So far, only 3 percent of requests for exemptions have been turned down, while 45 percent have been approved. As for the former soldiers who failed to appear at bases by their assigned dates, the Army is trying to reach them, one by one, to discuss their circumstances, Colonel Hart said. In late September, some Army officials suggested that they would pursue harsher punishments – declaring people AWOL and possibly pursuing military charges – but the Army has since taken a quieter, more conciliatory approach. “These are challenging times in their lives,” Colonel Hart said, adding that some former soldiers who failed to report might have moved and not received the Army's notice. “We're contacting them as best as possible.” For the rest, though, some questions linger over who really qualifies for the callback. Colette Parrish said she burst into tears the evening that her husband, Todd, walked into their house in Cary, N.C., with a letter from the Army calling him back to service. “We had no idea this could happen,” she said. “We hadn't been preparing for any of it because we thought it wasn't possible.” At first, Mr. Parrish, 31, said he was convinced that the letter was just an administrative error because he believed that his time in the Individual Ready Reserve had ended. He had gone to college on an R.O.T.C. scholarship, then served four years as a field artillery officer. He said he resigned his commission after that, became an engineer, and still owed the Army four years in the Individual Ready Reserve to complete his total obligation. To Mr. Parrish, who has filed a lawsuit against the Army in federal court in North Carolina, that obligation ended on Dec. 19, 2003. But the Army apparently does not agree, and says that it never accepted Mr. Parrish's resignation as an officer. As the court fight has continued, Mr. Parrish's date to report to Fort Sill, Okla., has been pushed back, again and again, one month at a time. Instead of thinking about long-term plans, for his wife and their future family, he is living in 30-day increments. He said he always looked back on his service years fondly, and with a deep sense of patriotism. “I guess I feel disillusioned now,” he said. “This isn't about being for or against the war. It's not about Democrats or Republicans. It's just a contract, and I don't think this is right. If they need more people, shouldn't they get them the right way? How many more like me are there?” Mark Waple, Mr. Parrish's lawyer, said he had received calls from 30 other former soldiers in recent months, all of whom had heard of Mr. Parrish's case and had similar stories. At least two other former soldiers have filed suit over the question. In Hawaii, David Miyasato, a former enlisted soldier who served in the first gulf war, said he would never go AWOL; he would have gone to Iraq, he said, if need be. But Mr. Miyasato also said that his eight-year commitment ended nearly a decade ago. After he received his letter calling him back to service, he said, he called the Army repeatedly to argue that he was not eligible. Finally, he said, with his date to report to a base in South Carolina just days away, he contacted a lawyer and filed suit on Nov. 5. “This was actually my last resort,” said Mr. Miyasato, a former truck driver and fuel hauler who said that, at 34, he led an entirely different life, with an 8-month-old daughter and a window-tinting company to run. “I had been calling around everywhere for help.” On Nov. 10, Mr. Miyasato said, he learned that the Army had rescinded his orders. In New York, Jay Ferriola, a former captain in the Army, filed a suit saying he had resigned his officer's commission in June and no longer qualified for call-up in the Individual Ready Reserve. On Nov. 5, the Army rescinded his orders and honorably discharged him. “This shows that the system works,” Colonel Hart said. “If the soldiers bring their situations to our attention, we're going to do what's right.” Barry Slotnick, Mr. Ferriola's lawyer, said he wondered how many other soldiers might be in similar positions, but without the money, the contacts or the certainty to sue. Mr. Slotnick said he had received numerous calls from others since he filed Mr. Ferriola's case in late October. “We might as well add another phone bank,” Mr. Slotnick said. “What I can see is that there are many, many cases of people being called up that shouldn't have been. This is a backdoor draft. I also have to wonder how many are already in Iraq who shouldn't be there, who just didn't think to question it.” The Army's current plan is to fill 4,400 jobs through March from among 5,600 former soldiers ordered to duty. But an Army official said last month that more former soldiers, perhaps in similar numbers, might be called on later next year, as well. For now, those being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan are being asked to handle a variety of support positions, including truck drivers and fuel and food suppliers. Months ago, the Army said some of the former soldiers would be needed to play the French horn, the clarinet, the euphonium, the saxophone and the electric bass as part of the military's bands, but the notion drew criticism from members of Congress who questioned the need to order people to give up their civilian lives to play instruments. Colonel Hart said the Army has since filled the musician jobs with volunteers. Before going to Iraq, former soldiers are receiving as many days of training as they need, an Army spokesman said. Some of the soldiers said they were worried, though, about the prospect and safety of trying to get up to speed in a few months. “These guys like me are basically untrained civilians now,” said Mr. Howell, the former helicopter test pilot. Mr. Howell said he left the Army years ago with an injured back, knee and elbow, leaving him wondering about his own physical condition. “I don't even have a uniform anymore,” he said. “But they don't have any more reserves left, so we're it. All they want is some bodies to go to Iraq, just someone to be there, to sit on the ground.” When he left the military in 1997 as part of a reduction in forces, Mr. Howell said, he saw a note in the “little print” in his annuity agreement about a future commitment. But he said he was told that his obligation to the Individual Ready Reserve would be brief and meant little anyway. “They said it was just a way of having me on the books,” he said. After that, Mr. Howell said, he jumped into the civilian world. He got married. He and his new wife began building a house. They struggled to have children. In September, his first child, Clayton, was born. Just before that, his orders arrived. “It does rip my heart out that these young men and women are over there, and there is part of me that wants to be with them,” he said recently. “But I have responsibilities here now.” Mr. Howell said he had applied to the Army for an exemption but was recently turned down. If he loses his appeal, he will be given a new reporting date. His best hope, he said, is that his appeal is buried somewhere at the very bottom of a big stack of them. Jewish Peace News Editors: Jewish Peace News needs your support. Your ga3.org/ct/-7aKtJ11gBVw/ donation to Jewish Voice for Peace is the only way that JVP can continue its important work, including this news service. |
|
|
|
|