As Israelis Know, Live as If There Is No Terrorism, But Deal With Its Reality by Amos N. Guiora (guest)
Amos N. Guiora, former commander of the Israel Defense Forces' School of Military Law, is a professor at S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah.
The news on the radio was awful. A suicide bomber had attacked in Jerusalem. The three young Israelis heard the report, and seemingly stopped for a moment to calculate its meaning to their lives? Had they been to the place? Did anyone they know live near there?
The answers were no and so the conversation they’d been having continued.
The answers were no and so the conversation they’d been having continued.
People cannot be insensitive to the loss of life or inured to suffering. But life must go on, lived with vigor and enthusiasm.
The terrorist attack was not forgotten, but it quickly took a back seat to the pressing issues of the day. Who needs to get where? Who has what homework assignment? Who has an athletic event?
This “turning of the dime” is essential for a healthy society under threat. It does not mean people are insensitive to the loss of life or inured to suffering. It does mean that life must be lived with vigor and enthusiasm.
Attacks reinforce how vulnerable democratic nations are in the face of extremism and terrorism. It’s the price we pay for being open societies.
In response to horrors like the Nice massacre, some will want to lash out at particular ethnic groups and limit individual rights and freedoms.
Israel has imposed many tough defense measures in response to the continual terror threat it faces. Some, like the security fence between Israel and the West Bank, administrative detention and targeted killing of Palestinians, and curfews on Palestinian communities, have evoked criticism and controversy, at home and abroad.
But while these means of self-defense are understood to be necessary and justified, the public also wants to live. It wants to enjoy the simple pleasures of life. It wants not to be burdened by the realities of terrorism and the costs it imposes.
That does not reflect callousness in the face of human suffering nor disregard of the pain of others but does reflect a mature response.
A mature -- perhaps “experienced” is a better word -- society understands that there will be days when terrorists have the upper hand in spite of government efforts.
It also means that the most effective societal response to a terrorist attack is to continue living. Sitting at home, with a “woe is me” attitude is to give in to terrorism.
Not to continue living is exactly what terrorists want; there are few things more encouraging to terrorists than a society that decides not to go shopping, attend sporting events and sit at coffee houses. Enjoying the simple pleasures of life -- while acknowledging the painful reality of terrorism -- is the best response individuals can make.
It is for government to legitimately and legally protect the public. That is its primary obligation.
The public has two obligations: not to interfere with lawful operational counterterrorism measures and to simultaneously live life as if there is no terrorism while recognizing the reality of terrorism
This “turning of the dime” is essential for a healthy society under threat. It does not mean people are insensitive to the loss of life or inured to suffering. It does mean that life must be lived with vigor and enthusiasm.
Attacks reinforce how vulnerable democratic nations are in the face of extremism and terrorism. It’s the price we pay for being open societies.
In response to horrors like the Nice massacre, some will want to lash out at particular ethnic groups and limit individual rights and freedoms.
Israel has imposed many tough defense measures in response to the continual terror threat it faces. Some, like the security fence between Israel and the West Bank, administrative detention and targeted killing of Palestinians, and curfews on Palestinian communities, have evoked criticism and controversy, at home and abroad.
But while these means of self-defense are understood to be necessary and justified, the public also wants to live. It wants to enjoy the simple pleasures of life. It wants not to be burdened by the realities of terrorism and the costs it imposes.
That does not reflect callousness in the face of human suffering nor disregard of the pain of others but does reflect a mature response.
A mature -- perhaps “experienced” is a better word -- society understands that there will be days when terrorists have the upper hand in spite of government efforts.
It also means that the most effective societal response to a terrorist attack is to continue living. Sitting at home, with a “woe is me” attitude is to give in to terrorism.
Not to continue living is exactly what terrorists want; there are few things more encouraging to terrorists than a society that decides not to go shopping, attend sporting events and sit at coffee houses. Enjoying the simple pleasures of life -- while acknowledging the painful reality of terrorism -- is the best response individuals can make.
It is for government to legitimately and legally protect the public. That is its primary obligation.
The public has two obligations: not to interfere with lawful operational counterterrorism measures and to simultaneously live life as if there is no terrorism while recognizing the reality of terrorism
No comments:
Post a Comment