Deterrorism Legislation

688 Words2 Pages

Recently, Israel has announced in an article about new counterterrorism legislation. This legislation gives the power to revoke permanent residency from convicted terrorists to the interior minister. The purpose of this is to deter others from participating such actions by increasing the consequence of participating in terrorism. According to Merav Hajaj, “Harm [from the policy] to their families will be so great, that it will deter them…” The interior minister has some constraints; the interior minister must consult justice minister and resident can appeal before district court.
Counterterrorism can be categorized as repressive or conciliatory. Conciliation involves some kind of award to those for not participating while repression involves some kind of punishment for offenders. This legislation would be an example of repression since revoking permanent residency is not meant to be a reward but as a punishment. The quote from Merav Hajaj literally uses the word harm when describing the purpose of this legislation. Words with negative connotations are hardly ever used to describe awards. …show more content…

According to Dugan and Chenoweth, deterrence is considered to be indiscriminate when the targets are not offenders and discriminate when the targets are known offenders (600). Revoking permanent residence is meant to be a discriminate deterrence. In one sense, the families of these people, who may not have participated in the actions, are also affected so it could be seen to be indiscriminate. However, the point of the legislation is to target those who have participated in terrorism so it is meant to be a discriminate deterrence. The legislation does not kick out those who are not connected to or directly participated in terrorist acts based on the

Open Document