Think things through
As a reporter for the past 46 years, I have covered government decisions that were similar to the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet decision from Thursday, which introduced new measures against rock and firebomb throwers. Such decisions are crucial, for they have allowed Israel to cope with Palestinian terrorism and bring about long periods of calm -- until the attackers rear their head again in the next round.
During my first month as a young Haaretz reporter for political affairs, two cabinet ministers and one senior adviser told me with remorse that they should have raised questions when the cabinet voted on the 1968 operation at Karameh, Jordan, a year earlier. That operation ended with many Israeli casualties. Over the years, governments have signed off on many bellicose decisions. Most, but not all, had merit to them.
Cabinet ministers are always convinced these decisions would remedy whatever situation is debated. One of the decisions led to the Second Lebanon War in 2006. A day after the cabinet passed that resolution, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak and former cabinet minister Dan Meridor approached me. They asked me to have a heart-to-heart talk with then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to make sure he wipes off the smile he had on his face, a smile that prematurely celebrated what he believed would be a certain victory. I refused. The Karameh battle taught me that even when resolutions are unanimously approved, like Thursday's decision, ministers must ask a multitude of questions prior to the vote.
One thing is clear: Law enforcement should be allowed to aim at and shoot terrorists who are armed with a stone or a Molotov cocktail. But how can officers tell if that person is threatening the life of someone who is much farther away? Is Thursday's decision a license to kill that is on par with the rules of the Wild West? It may be easy to tell an 8-year-old stone thrower from a 30-year-old terrorist, but how can the police differentiate between a teenager and an adult?
Self-defense is a given right, but in this day and age, with an active International Criminal Court, Israeli ministers should avoid hasty decisions. Israel's pressing desire to see something done is understandable and justified, but it could ultimately backfire.
There are a host of other problems generated by this resolution: The new rules could prompt the Palestinians to decide, just for spite, to let only small children be the rock throwers. What will the military and police do then? We must consider that scenario. The resolution also includes mandatory minimum sentences. I believe that this policy, despite its drawbacks, should be adopted. But why impose four years, rather than several months, on a young teen or child who, despite having nothing but contempt for the Jews, did not inflict bodily harm?
The resolution does not just call on judges to impose such sentences. Under that resolution, courts are required to do so. Perhaps it would have been best to forgo a cabinet resolution on this matter and instead instruct the State Attorney's Office to ask the Supreme Court to impose such sentences. The lower courts would have presumably followed suit in future cases.
Aggressive punitive measures are essential. The government knows this well, but it has conducted itself with haste. Those hasty measures -- sniper fire, and even more so, the endorsement of lengthy sentences -- could turn into a source of embarrassment as things unfold. The government is moving in the right direction, but its policy needs fine-tuning.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו