Let's start with what we already know- it's important to fight terrorism. Every person in Israel has the right to defend themselves; citizens of the state should never live in fear of terrorist acts. With that said, the new counter-terrorism laws that were brought up for a preliminary vote in the Knesset are not the right way to promise that.

Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter



The proposed legislation's problems are varied, and start with the expanded definition of who is a terrorist, what is a terrorist act, and what compromises a terror organization. The definitions apply to Israelis and Palestinians alike. For example, the law provides a broad definition for a terrorist act, and includes any act that not only harms people and or the safety of the public at large, as is applicable in the current law, but also covers damage to property, acts of protest meant to pressure the government, and vocal support of terror acts.

War on Terror The fight against terrorism isn’t a utopia Ben-Dror Yemini Op-ed: The government's proposal to release hunger striker into exile isn't ideal, but better solutions are nowhere to be found. The fight against terrorism isn’t a utopia

An additional example of the problematic nature of the proposed legislation is the process of declaring a terrorist group. The Defense Minister can legally declare any Jewish or Palestinian group a "Terrorist Organization" even if they have no direct links to terror, for example charity organizations with links to Hamas. The meaning is that any member of the group, and its enough to just wear the group's shirt, can be tried, and face two years in prison.

The administrative processes are also highly problematic. For example, anyone who vocally supports terror, Jew or Palestinian, will risk not only a terrorism charge, but also the possibility of administrative detention, administrative limitation orders, and prevention from seeking legal advice. The anchoring of these sanctions in law is a very severe move, as it does not allow the suspect to know what they are being charged with, and as such they cannot prepare a proper defense.

Another problem is anchoring the widespread use of classified evidence in law, starting from the moment a decision is made to use administrative detention, and up to the process of declaring a "terrorist organization", including the decision to seize property – which prevents the suspect from defending themselves. An additional clause which is especially problematic, places the burden of proof on the suspect as to the cessation of membership in a terrorist organization. How can anyone prove such a thing?

This review is too short to explain the many dangers posed by the proposed legislation, but there is no doubt that the current proposal leaves a wide opening for false accusations of terrorism, and will prevent suspects from adequately defending themselves.