Over recent months, I have written extensively in support of the proposed death penalty law, which is currently progressing through the Knesset. Shortly after my articles were published, I faced criticism from passionate “die -hard” (pardon the pun) opponents of the death penalty. They invoke humanism and claim that seeking justice through the executions of terrorists is merely revenge, which they argue is unjust.

These voices demonstrate empathy for the murderer and are naive and reckless. They believe that killing is always wrong, regardless of the situation. They confuse the murderer with the policeman who kills the killer. Consider the society that embraces such misguided and perilous ideas. The Gemara itself cautions that removing the death penalty results in chaos.

One such voice against the death penalty is the woke, liberal Michael Zoosman. He has written rebuttals against my articles and claims that my support for the death penalty stems from a desire for vengeance. After misinterpreting my words, he substitutes my arguments with ones I never made, and proceeds to “refute” them.

The death penalty is not vengeance. No one proposes torturing Hamas murderers, mutilating them, or waterboarding them — actions that could be construed as vengeance. The death penalty law does not call for exacting revenge by mirroring their heinous crimes. Instead, it involves using an internationally accepted method of execution.  The Gemara refers to an “ox that gores,” noting that an ox with a history of goring is handled differently from an infrequent or casual offender.

In his misguided rush for compassion, he mistakes common murderers with Islamist terrorists, ignoring a vital distinction. Someone who kills out of jealousy or during madness is fundamentally different from an Islamist fanatic who sees exterminating the Jewish people as a divine duty  a “mitzva” and believes it will earn Allah’s approval. They cannot be rehabilitated; they show no remorse and consider the present Israeli treatment of them, as a “weakness” to be exploited. They will kill again, given a chance.

The argument that life sentences are sufficient to protect society is ludicrous. Life sentences are never for “life” and do not actually remove murderers’ danger to society. Instead, they only give them a temporary break, a vacation if you will, until they are released in the next prisoner exchange and the next chance to kill arises. Yahya Sinwar was the classic example. He was released in the ill-fated Gilad Shalit exchange.

Zoosman draws on his experience as a prison chaplain to explain his compassion. I am sure he heard many heartfelt stories,  or ‘bubba meises’, from the prisoners. They professed their innocence, no doubt, and the gullible Zoosman fell for it. But every prisoner has a sob story. In fact, there are no guilty people in prison. Refer to the movie Shawshank Redemption.

He recounts a moment in his life when, in a fleeting burst of sanity, he considered executing murderers, but he managed to suppress that rational impulse. He cites some public figures willing to let Nazi murderers live, in their rejection of capital punishment.  But he conveniently forgets the fate of the Nazis who were not executed. They ended up in Arab countries and continued to aid in the killing of Jews. Was it ‘compassionate’ to have them escape the death penalty? Justice, and the families of their future victims, demanded their execution.

Claiming that proponents of the death penalty law are craving for revenge is a “red herring”, and it’s nonsense.  I support the death penalty for the sake of justice. As the poet Chayim Nachman Bialik so eloquently cried out after the Kishinev Pogrom  in 1903, in his famous poem “Upon the Slaughter.”

And cursed be he who cries out: Revenge! Vengeance like this, for the blood of a child, Satan has yet to devise.

Zoosman is apoplectic in his fear that executing terrorist murderers will invite more murders of Jews. As if Arabs ever needed any excuse to murder Jews?   Zoosman is blaming the Jewish victims for their own murders?

Vengeance has nothing to do with this debate, only justice. God Himself has commanded us to pursue Justice: Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof.

We need the death penalty law to send a message that Israel will no longer tolerate the murder of its citizens.

The concept of Rodef (a pursuer) must be invoked in the discussion of the permissibility of such executions. While this applies to an “imminent danger,” the ongoing nature of Arab terrorism arguably should be applied.

I worry about the future victims of these murderers. I can guarantee that an executed terrorist poses no future danger.

Several weeks ago, Jews celebrated  Purim, the commemoration of being saved from the murderous intentions of the Persian Haman. Mr. Zoosman, were you celebrating with the Jewish nation? Or perhaps you are mourning the loss of Haman to the death penalty?

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)