In the past few months, dozens of Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank -- including women and teenagers -- have been killed while attempting despicable terror attacks against Israeli soldiers and innocent civilians.
In most cases, they have been shot to death by soldiers, police or civilians with weapons rather than wounded and captured, even in clear cases where the perpetrators could have been captured. Even if this is not official government policy, it appears that it is the operational policy of Israel's security services in the wake of the latest round of terrorist attacks.
Is the practice of "shooting to kill" Palestinians in the West Bank and inside Israel an ethical policy? And, is it effective as a deterrent in the difficult security situation we face in Israel in recent months (and years and decades...)?
These are questions that are very much on my mind these days in the light of the constant killings of Palestinians who attempt to stab or otherwise harm Israeli soldiers and many innocent civilians. I have noticed that these questions are on the minds of other people in Israel, but not too many and not enough, probably due to a fear of speaking out that has been created by the government and by right-wing propagandists in Israel in recent weeks.
One of the people who is clearly troubled by this "shoot to kill" policy is Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer, who is a professor of law in Israel and the vice president for research at the Jerusalem-based Israel Democracy Institute. In an insightful and important article entitled "Thou Shalt Not Kill?" a few weeks ago in the Jerusalem Report (November 30, 2015), he pointed out some of the dangers and problems of this policy.
First of all, Professor Kremnitzer said clearly and succinctly:
The right to self-defense against illegal attack--from which the law enforcement authorities derive their right to intervene--is by no means an unconditional license to kill. Whenever the danger can be neutralized in a non-lethal manner, it should be. When assailants no longer pose a threat they should not be harmed. They should be treated the same way as felons who have committed a crime. In a society intent on preserving its humanistic identity, neutralized terrorists cannot simply be executed vigilante style, and anyone who harms them must be made to face the consequences.
This is a statement by one of the most respected law professors in Israel, who also is affiliated with one of Israel's leading research institutes in Israel, the Israel Democracy Institute. It is not a comment from someone on the far left of Israeli politics, nor is it a statement of a minister of Foreign affairs from a European country.
When I was a student in the USA in the 1960s in the USA during the Civil Rights Movement, together with many of my colleagues and friends, we demonstrated and spoke out against this "shoot to kill" policy in the Deep South. It was ultimately changed during the civil rights period.
But to speak out against this, or to say even one word or one sentence about the morality or the efficacy of this policy in Israel these days, could run the risk of one being accused of "treason" in a country where free speech on this issue is becoming more difficult every day.
In addition to the morality of this policy and the justice of "shooting to kill" almost all the time--including young Palestinian teenagers with scissors in their hands who are not attempting to harm the shooter (as was caught on videotape and published on the evening news in Israel a few weeks ago)--there is also the question of the efficacy of such a policy. Will it work? Will it deter other potential Palestinians from trying to attack Israeli soldiers with knives or cars?
According to Professor Kremnitzer, it will not help.
Over-reaction is a sure-fire recipe for failure. The more massive the deployment of forces, the more the achievement of the attackers is magnified, the more terror is proven to be a useful tool and the higher the motivation to carry out more acts of terror... Not everything touted as a deterrent really deters.
Is it not time for Jewish leaders in Israel and in the Diaspora to question this "shoot to kill" policy? It is both morally unacceptable and pragmatically ineffective. Rather, it appears more to be acts of vengeance and lashing out, which just lead to more acts of vengeance, feeding the ongoing cycle of violence.
And, can one raise one's voice about this in a rational calm yet concerned way without being considered a traitor around here? Will anyone in power listen? Or will they just get angry and have their "communications" spokespeople produce more government spin on the issue rather than relating to the ethical and pragmatic questions that are being raised in a serious, substantive and sensitive way?
These questions are very much on my mind these days, and on the minds of many other people in Israel and in the Diaspora who are remaining too quiet on this issue at the present time.