Rewards are collective... so why not punishments?

I have to admit that as I've read the political commentary surrounding Israel's ongoing conflicts with its neighbors (and their unruly 'houseguests'), I am continually puzzled by one of the terms that crops up again and again: 'Collective Punishment'.

It isn't that I didn't understand the basic concept... but rather that I didn't fully understand how collective punishment has seemingly become the only criteria by which a country's war-time behavior is judged... not to mention why it is a standard to which non-national entities (such as Hezbollah, Hamas, et al) are not held at all! 

As I've looked into the topic, I have come to the conclusion that the legal prohibition against 'collective punishment' is as outdated as the very international convention (the Fourth Geneva Convention) that defines and prohibits it.

Feel free to skip ahead if you are already conversant on this stuff, but for the rest of us, here is an outline of the legal definitions and prohibitions:

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, collective punishments are considered a war crime.  Article 33 makes two basic statements:

1.  "No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed"

2.  "Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited"

"By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World Wars I and II. In the First World War, Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity. In World War II, Nazis carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that took place there. The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility."  [Source]

Looking at these definitions, they seem to be designed to protect populations that are under occupation and at the mercy of the occupying power's military whims.  To this end, the questions that remained for me were 'who is a protected person and how far does that protection extend'? 

The pertinent passages are:

"1.  [Article 2 states that] signatories are bound by the convention both in war, armed conflicts where war has not been declared and in an occupation of another country's territory.

2.  [Article 3 states that] even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

What should bother even the most casual observer is that, because these rules were drafted in the wake of WWII to deal with conflicts exclusively between nation-states that bear no resemblance to current 4th generation warfare, they don't begin to address the problem of what to do when confronted by a belligerent, non-sovereign entity whose entire battle strategy is based on violating some or all of the convention's terms?

Think about this:  Many of Israel's loudest critics have openly defended attacks ("resistance) against ANY Israeli target (including civilians) because Israelis are assumed to be collectively responsible for the country's policies and actions.  I could almost accept this if the same logic were applied to our enemies' civilian populations.

So, given that Hezbollah acted with the full knowledge and tacit approval of the Lebanese population (of which they are a sub-set) why was international criticism directed at our prosecution of the second Lebanon war?  Should Israel have reasonably been expected to refrain from shooting back while Hezbollah was merrily waging war from within densely populated civilian population centers who aided and abetted our enemy with their silence and tacit support? 

This is exactly what many of Israel's critics around the world contend.  They posit that since the Lebanese civilians who were caught in the crossfire hadn't been personally responsible for attacking Israel that they couldn't legally be punished for that offense.

This leaves us to ponder whether the Lebanese population had a collective 'personal responsibility' that would fit the conditions of the Geneva Convention.  I contend that such a responsibility does, in fact, exist.

In a schoolyard children are expected to abide by the rules even when one bad actor in their midst refuses to do so.  The assumed proximity of a higher authority dictates that a bully who physically abuses his peers or intimidates them into coughing up their lunch money on a daily basis is going to be reported to the teacher or principal.  If the kids didn't reasonably believe that they could report the offenses of the bully, they would be justified in acting outside the rules. 

Likewise, the contention that Lebanese civilians couldn't be held responsible for the heavily fortified rocket launchers and bunkers in their midst is complete nonsense.  They always had the ability (via UNIFIL) to 'tell the teacher' about the local bully's activities.

There has been an international presence in Lebanon throughout the years when Hezbollah was building its infrastructure.  At any point during that time, mechanisms could have been put in motion to raise the issue with the U.N. and bring international scrutiny (and presumably action) against Hezbollah.  But that didn't happen.... and therein lies the personal collective responsibility of the Lebanese civilian population. 

Ironically, it was probably fear of exactly the sort of retribution the Geneva Convention had in mind that compelled these Lebanese civilians to remain silent.  But still, Israel stepped up to complain about Hezbollah's growing infrastructure many times... even as these civilians remained silent.  That the teachers and principal decided to take a few days vacation without telling the students is not Israel's fault. 

It is assumed that countries with healthy governments and safe societies have done something to earn the resulting collective reward.  For example, Switzerland enjoys a reputation for cleanliness because its citizens are obsessed with the issue on an individual basis and won't abide a flagrant litterer in their midst.  Germany also has a national reputation for orderliness / rules which allows events such as the purchase of train tickets to be organized on the 'honor system', with the individual shame of being caught by a 'spot check' being more than enough of a deterrent to force near total compliance.

To belabor the point just a tad further, I have seen countless unattended road-side stands in northern New England where jars of honey, baskets of berries and bushels of corn are set out with nothing more than a sign stating the price and an old cigar box for patrons to leave payment and make their own change.  In other cultures such a system would result in both the produce and money box being immediately stolen.  But because the local New England populations can assume that most will emulate their ethics, they are rewarded with a system that continues to function successfully.

The central pillar of this rambling post is that if a society is collectively rewarded for their behavior (and one can assume they continue behaving a certain way to continually reap that reward), then why isn't it safe to also assume that a society that is collectively punished for bad behavior will  change their behavior and seek the path of reward?

Or, as I often point out, I could be completely full of sh*t.

(source)