According to Reuters, “Israel on Friday destroyed the family homes of two Palestinian militants held responsible for the killings of at least 17 Israelis, pursuing a policy meant to deter violence but condemned by human rights groups.”
http://www.reuters.com/news_article.jhtml?type=worldnews&StoryID=1338559
According to info posted in another thread, “A Palestinian group that handles the distribution of money to bereaved families says Saddam has sent at least $30 million in cash to support the families of Palestinian men killed since the uprising began in September 2000.”
(See "Palestinians Hold Pro-Saddam Rally ")
Now Israel’s policy (whether in violation of international law or not) is clearly designed to send a message to would-be suicide bombers and terrorists that their families will suffer for planning and carrying out attacks.
Saddam’s policy is clearly designed to send a message to would-be suicide bombers that if they attack Israel, their families will be financially rewarded.
Both policies are therefore designed to affect conduct of Palestinians. A couple of questions:
-
Do you think either of these policies actually affect conduct of Palestinians in the way that either Israel or Saddam want?
-
Can either policy be justified and, if so, under what theory?
-
Can one policy be justified without also necessarily justifying the opposing policy? In other words, can you justify rewarding a family for the acts of one member while not also providing the logical basis for punishing a family for the acts of one member?