A Tertiary Model for Countering Terrorism in Liberal Democracies: The Case of Israel

Abstract

Like other studies in the field of counter-terrorism the question underlying this article is to what degree can a democracy lead an effective struggle against terrorism and at the same time uphold its liberal, or even democratic, character? This article seeks to elaborate on the theoretical tools used for answering this question by developing the operational aspects of the 'war model' and 'criminal justice model' in the war against terrorism and then by presenting an 'expanded criminal justice model' to mediate between the two already existing models. This continuum of models is then tested on the Israeli response to Jewish terrorism and possible explanations for the state's decision to move from one model to the other are presented. One of the central conclusions of the study is that the most successful anti-terrorist campaigns led by Israel against Jewish terrorists were the ones in which the state's authorities did not cross any democratic boundaries.

Terrorism and Public Opinion in Australia

“…There are two dominant approaches to counter-terrorism: one based on a criminal justice model where terrorism is viewed as a crime, the other approach a military model where terrorism is viewed as an act of warfare and the response requires the military and the curtailing of individual freedoms (Chalk 1998). Historically, Australia's approach to counter-terrorism has been guided by the criminal justice model and the use of the police force; however, the boundaries between the criminal justice model and the military model are not always clear during times of heightened threat (Crelinsten 1998;Crelinsten and Schmid 1992;Pedahzur and Ranstorp 2001). Indeed, Australia expanded its military operations in Afghanistan to combat the threat of terrorism and the government has stated that the responsibilities of the military and the police force must be merged in order to respond to terrorist threats (Australian Government 2008;Smith 2008).…”

“…Countering terrorism represents a trade-off between increased security and curtailing civil liberty. At the core of the dilemma is the degree to which a democracy can contain terrorism and manage the associated risks while at the same time preserving liberal-democratic values (Pedahzur and Ranstorp 2001;Wilkinson 1986). In general, the more intrusive the nature of the counterterrorism strategy, the greater is the risk that democratic foundations will be compromised in the process (Pedahzur and Ranstorp 2001).…”

“…At the core of the dilemma is the degree to which a democracy can contain terrorism and manage the associated risks while at the same time preserving liberal-democratic values (Pedahzur and Ranstorp 2001;Wilkinson 1986). In general, the more intrusive the nature of the counterterrorism strategy, the greater is the risk that democratic foundations will be compromised in the process (Pedahzur and Ranstorp 2001). Mani (2006) notes, however, that citizens will generally accept some restrictions on civil and human rights for the purpose of national security, but only if these restrictions are in conformity with the rule of law.…”

“Right to Privacy and Counter-terrorism in the Digital Age: A Critical Appraisal for Bangladesh”

“…The intelligence function is an important element in any counterterrorist effort. In proactive security intelligence, information is not gathered for evidentiary purposes but for intelligence purposes (Pedahzur and Ranstorp 2001). Targeted surveillance also enables intelligence and law enforcement agencies to monitor the online activity of particular individuals, to penetrate database and cloud facilities, and to capture the information stored on them.…”

Modelling Terrorism and Political Violence

“…Because terrorism is neither a genuine crime nor a form of genuine military aggression, the nation state employs a mix of measures for social control and conflict regulation in order to contain its occurrence: besides the 'war model', 'the criminal justice model' and the 'expanded criminal justice model', 11 the 'public health model' 12 and reconciliation and restorative justice 13 have been introduced as a means of countering terrorism. Because this mix of measures seems to be insufficient, some states even make use of utilitarian instruments of power such as extraordinary renditions, targeted killings, or torture of terrorist suspects.…”