Although the State of Israel is involved in an ongoing struggle against radical elements in the occupied territories and on its sovereign territory, the government’s decision to outlaw a political movement, the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, is a highly unusual measure. There are only two precedents to the decision announced Nov. 17: In the early 1960s, a similar step targeted the Arab Al-Ard movement, and in 1994 the government declared the Jewish Kach and Kahane Chai movements terror organizations, thus banning them. This tool is rarely used and with good reason.

The Israeli legal system and enforcement agencies have proved themselves capable of dealing with the leader of the northern branch, Sheikh Raed Salah, when he overstepped the law. Two years ago, he was convicted of inciting violence and terror and of racial incitement. Following an appeal, he was sentenced to 11 months in jail, in addition to receiving an eight-month suspended sentence. In sensitive cases, when the state feels that evidence cannot be publicly revealed for security reasons, it makes use of administrative detention, that is, detaining a person without an indictment or trial.

Declaring an organization illegal, however, is a badge of shame for a democracy. In “Terror and Democracy in the Aftermath of Sept. 11,” published by the Israel Democracy Institute, legal scholar Naomi Himeyn-Raisch wrote that a state’s ability to provide itself and its democracy with substantive protection depends to a large extent on authorities maintaining a balance between the values of security and the values of liberalism, as well as on strict adherence to the rule of law.

After the Cabinet’s decision on the Islamic Movement, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “Democracy must defend itself. It must defend itself against those who strive to subvert it.” He cited the desire “to prevent incitement, which contributes to terrorist attacks against innocent people.” There is no doubt that keeping innocent people out of harm’s way is a commendable goal in a democracy on the defense. The first question, however, is whether outlawing the northern branch promotes this goal. The second question is to what extent this decision is in keeping with the value of equality before the law, the life force of any democracy.