A state deciding when it may end a human life outside war is always crossing a line, even when it insists it is doing so for humane reasons. Two democracies are now approaching that line from opposite directions.

Israeli hostages are taken because Israel places such value on individual lives. Prisoners are released because Israeli society will accept painful compromises to recover its own

Israeli hostages are taken because Israel places such value on individual lives. Prisoners are released because Israeli society will accept painful compromises to recover its own

In Britain, MPs are moving towards legalising euthanasia. Doctors, families, and patients describe the slow cruelty of terminal illness and the desire to end it on one’s own terms. The state is asked to permit death as an act of compassion. In Israel, the argument runs in the opposite direction. There, the question is whether the state should impose death as punishment for those who have carried out acts of terrorism. The justification lies not in relieving suffering, but in preventing it: stopping future violence, disrupting hostage-taking, imposing finality on a conflict that rarely permits it.

Both societies claim, in their own way, to be acting humanely. That is where the discomfort begins. The same value is being used to justify two entirely different relationships between the state and death. One seeks to spare individuals from prolonged suffering. The other seeks to prevent further killing by those........

© The Spectator