Skip to main content

Israel attempts to redefine terrorism, but is its definition too broad?

Some observers are concerned that a draft Israeli law's wide-ranging definition of what constitutes terrorism could outlaw opposition to the occupation and suppress political opposition in Israel.

Israeli policemen patrol a street in the Arab east Jerusalem neighbourhood of Jabel Mukaber following clashes in Jerusalem  September 18, 2015. Israel deployed hundreds of extra police around the Old City of Jerusalem on Friday after Palestinian leaders called for a 'day of rage' to protest at new Israeli security measures. In an effort to limit the threat of violence, Israel also banned access to al-Aqsa for all men under 40 on Friday, the Muslim holy day. REUTERS/Ammar Awad - RTS1S1V
Israeli policemen patrol a street in the Arab East Jerusalem neighborhood of Jabel Mukaber following clashes in Jerusalem, Sept. 18, 2015. — REUTERS/Ammar Awad

A troubling anti-terrorism law to replace the 1945 Defense (Emergency) Regulations passed its first reading in the Israeli Knesset by an overwhelming 45-14 vote on Sept. 2. The 100-page piece of legislation had been opposed by the left-wing Meretz Party and the predominantly Arab Joint List, but appears to have the support of the two major Israeli parties, the Likud and the Zionist Camp.

For a time, the mandate-era British regulations continued to be used by Israel as the legal basis for collective punishment, such as deportations, home demolitions and administrative detention in the occupied Palestinian territories. In 1999, however, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the government to “start reducing the number of laws and ordinances that depend on the state of emergency.” An attempt to rewrite the regulations as original Israeli law was made during Tzipi Livni's tenure as justice minister (2013-14), but the Association for Civil Rights in Israel strongly opposed it. The effort remained mired in the Knesset's legislative process.

The current draft legislation is so extensive and repressive that Yael Berda, a leading Israeli lawyer and professor of law at Hebrew University, called it “scary and undemocratic” and a “regime change” in an interview with Al-Monitor. In a Sept. 18 Times of Israel article, reporter Marisa Newman outlined eight changes in the law in regard to the Israeli government's approach to the issue of terrorism. They include an expansion of the definition of terror, a lack of distinction between attacks on civilians versus soldiers and the designation as a terror organization of any nongovernmental organizations, including humanitarian groups, “that assist terror organizations in any way.”

Sympathy with a group deemed a terror organization is severely punishable. Newman wrote, “If done publicly — whether waving a sign at a rally, posting on social media or wearing a T-shirt — the individual will be eligible to serve three years in prison.” The legislation also enshrines administrative detention into Israeli law and gives Shin Bet, the Israeli intelligence agency, wide-ranging powers to hack into private citizens’ computers.

SUBSCRIBER EXCLUSIVE

Continue reading this exclusive analysis

Original reporting and analysis unavailable elsewhere. Subscribe to AL-MONITOR to read this story and access everything we publish