life vs property-historical view of punitive action
"... it is only an unphilosophic mind that will hold it legitimate, to take a man's life, and illegitimate to destroy his property."
After reading several threads I was reminded of a passage in an old book, a book written by a very famous and well respected author. I could leave it go with a simple times have changed statement. But I wonder if that is true. Times have changed but the human being has not. He is still capable bof being base and cruel. I could leave it go with war has changed, but has its true nature really changed? When I use the word changed I mean it in the sense of evolution. Here is the quote. I apologize in advance for the length but it is necessary to understand the moment.
"In pursuance of these orders, the 2nd Brigade on the 29th destroyed all the villages in the centre of the valley, some twelve or fourteen in number, and blew up with dynamite upwards of thirty towers and forts. The tribesmen, unable to contend with the troops in the open, remained sullenly on the hillsides, and contended themselves with firing from long range at the cavalry patrols.
I feel that this is a fitting moment to discuss the questions which village-burning raises. I have described with independent impartiality the progress of the quarrel between the British and the tribesmen. In a similiar spirit I approach the examination of the methods of offence employed. Many misconceptions exist on this subject in England. One member of the House of Commons aske the Secretary of State whether, in the punishment of villages, care was taken that only the houses of the guilty parties should be destroyed. He was gravely toldthat great care was taken. The spectacel of troops, who have perhaps carried a village with the bayonet and are holding it against a vigorous counter-attack, when every moment means loss of life and increase of danger, going round and carefully discriminating which houses are occupied by 'guilty parties' , and which by unoffending people, is ridiculous. Another member asked, 'whetehr the villages were destroyed or only the fortifications.' 'Only the fortifications', replied the minister guilelessly. What is the actual fact? All along the Afghan border every mans house is his castle. The villages are the fortifications, the fortifications the villages. Every household is loopholed and whether it has a tower or not is dependent only on it's owners wealth. A third legislator, in th ecolumns ofhis amusing weekly journal, discussed the question at some length, and commented ont he barbarity of such tactics. They were not only barbarous, he affirmed, but senseless. Where did the inhabitants of the villages go? To the enemy of course! This reveals, perhaps, the most remarkabel misconception of the actual facts. The writer seemed to imagine that the tribesmen conssisted of a regular army who fought, and a peaceful, law-abiding population who remained at their business, and perhaps protested against the excessive military expenditure from time to time. Whereas in reality throughout the regions, every inhabitant is a soldier from the first day he is old enough to hurl a stone, till the last day he has strength to pull a trigger...
Equipped with these facts I invite the reader to examine the question of the legitimacy of the village-burning for himself. A camp of a British brigade, ...is attacked at night...THe assailants retire tot hte hills. Thither it is impossible to follow them. They cannot be caught. They cannot be punished. Only one remedy remains--their property must be destroyed. Their villages are made hostages for their good behaviour. They are fully aware of this, and when they make an attack on a camp or convoy they do it baecause they have considered the cost and think it worth while. Of course, it is cruel and barbarous, as is much else in war, but it is only an unphilosophic mind that will hold it legitimate, to take a man's life, and illegitimate to destroy his property. "
--Winston Churchill, Malakand Field Force 1892.
Bold added to highlight the final comment.
Targetting the base in which the enemy resides is tricky business if and when that base is the very home of the population you are fighting to gain control of or support from. In many ways it seems more difficult today than ever before. Is property destruction a valid means of population control? Is punitive action valid?
Israeli house demolitions
The IDF conducted an investigation into its punitive demolition policy, which ultimately found that they had no observable deterrent effect, and instead tended to simply anger the Palestinian population. As a result, the practice was substantially curtailed in 2005.
Demolitions do continue, to enable settlement expansion as well as construction of settler bypass roads and the separation barrier. Demolitions also occur of unlicensed construction in Area C of the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, where it is often difficult for Palestinians to get building permits.
The families of Palestinians involved in armed attacks no longer automatically have their family homes demolished. However, Israeli Public Security Minister Avi Dichter did call for the demolition of the family home of the gunmen who killed eight Israelis at the Merkaz Harav Yeshiva in March.
I haven't seen any more recent reporting on this.
