Terrorism cannot be stopped completely. The hatred, incitement and encouragement of terrorism on the Palestinian side will not pass overnight.
The young people who dream of becoming "martyrs" and bringing to their families the honor (and a fixed salary) are many and determined. The IDF's tremendous capabilities, the daring and creativity of its commanders and soldiers succeed only in many cases, not all. This is the paradox of the guard and the burglar: in order for the guard to be considered a success, he must prevent burglaries one hundred percent of the time, but in order for the burglar to be considered successful - he must break in only once, even if in all other attempts he failed. Our enemies wait patiently for the right time: a breach during the defense, a hole in the fence, an unalert soldier. It is this discrepancy that gave rise to the most obscure Israeli word in the dictionary: "deterrence."
A lot of sophistication and thought goes into fighting terrorism. economic, political, diplomatic, legal struggle, a secret struggle against the snake's heads; The question that remains unresolved is what tools do we, as a liberal democratic state, have to cause a potential terrorist to give up the attack, for fear of what will happen to him and his family after him?
Gilboa Prison Tour // Photo: Moshe Ben Simhon
As early as 1955, Moshe Dayan stated that "we cannot prevent the murder of workers in the orchard and families in their sleep, but we can exact a high price for our blood." But what price are we able to charge? The joke called Israeli prisons doesn't exactly meet the need – it's hard to decide whether because of the extraordinary conditions, the reasonable chance of early release or the ability to demand your favorite guard from the wing commander, and even the slogan "death penalty for terrorists" doesn't exactly deter a person who intended to become a martyr anyway. There is no choice but to understand that deterrence will not be achieved from a threat to the terrorist himself, but from pressure from his immediate environment: the family and the village.
Many good former senior security officials, right and left, testified that the most effective tools for fighting terrorism were those that involved the terrorist's immediate surroundings: from using the "neighbor procedure" that was forbidden by the High Court of Justice, even though it was a procedure that exacted a minimal price in human life and property compared to the alternatives; The deportation of families to Gaza, when it is clear that the family members knew about or supported the son's actions, was also prohibited by the High Court of Justice, even though it proved to be an effective tool at no cost in human life; Immediate house demolition – a procedure that has been retired and returned to use in accordance with the spirit of the census and the spirit of the High Court of Justice over the years; and revocation of work permits or social benefits from the terrorist's family, which was also done following the recent attack.
But all these tools spark a lively public, legal and ethical debate, and rightly so. Already in the Old Testament, the prophet Jeremiah revolts, "Fathers ate unripe and sons' teeth dulled?!" The idea that sons will pay the price for the injustice done by their father, or vice versa, is an idea against which our moral instinct rebels.
Kant's categorical imperative states that each person should be seen as an end, not a means to an end, and therefore one person should not be punished in order to influence another's behavior. In addition, in an increasingly individualistic world, who among us expects the collective to take responsibility for the individual and pay a price for his actions?
We have two options. The first is to recognize that reality and morality tie our hands, and to decide that the price we pay in the dead, the wounded and the wounded is tolerable. But a state that in the name of morality abandons its sons to the mercy of terrorism is no longer a moral state, and we are left with the second option: to decide that, like many abstract issues, in the face of reality in the alleys of Jenin or Nablus, concrete morality is preferable to abstract morality. It is better to use non-lethal force to prevent carnage, even if it is photographed less beautifully.
In the case of clear evidence of the involvement of the family and community in making the terrorist so, it is impossible to allow additional terrorists to continue to flourish under the cover of a reluctance to collective punishment. The legacy of "high price for our blood" may sound simple and logical and moral, but note: it requires not only specifying a price, but also ensuring that there is someone to back it up.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us