Q&A: Responsibility of the Attacker and Personal Responsibility
Responsibility of the Attacker and Personal Responsibility
Question
Hello,
I would be glad to hear the Rabbi’s view on the principled issue connected with magnetometers.
My sense is that in the public non-discussion around the magnetometers there is confusion between two concepts: the attacker’s responsibility for his actions on the one hand, and the personal obligation imposed on a person (and on society) to be careful on the other.
The personal obligation neither adds to nor detracts in any way from the attacker’s responsibility, but it still exists. Part of the confusion is also related to the fact that the scope of a person’s personal obligation toward himself depends on broader considerations, such as how important it is to fight bullying, and also how desirable or beneficial the behavior is, and how harmful it is to prevent that behavior (women in revealing clothing, Jews ascending the Temple Mount, hitchhiking, living beyond the Green Line, and more). Factual questions also arise regarding the degree of risk involved in the behavior.
And from here come the mistakes in the public discussion—people identify the question of the attacker’s responsibility with the personal duty of caution; and, even without saying so explicitly, people evaluate differently the general considerations that determine the desirable degree of personal caution.
There is not really a question here; I would just be glad to hear a response.
Thank you.
Answer
Hello Dvir.
I didn’t understand the question. Do you mean the tension between the danger of violence created by leaving the magnetometers in place, and the need to place responsibility on the attacker, which would require leaving them in place?
If that is what you mean, I don’t think that is the dilemma. The magnetometers are not meant to punish anyone or to assign responsibility to attackers, but simply to prevent danger. The question whether this is effective is a professional one, and I won’t express an opinion about it here. But in my opinion, even if it now turns out that they have no security value, it would still not be right to remove them, so as not to incentivize, encourage, and reward violence. On the contrary, one should go all the way, including casualties (mainly theirs, of course), as in any war. From experience, it seems to me that one learns quite clearly that compromises made under violence usually do not help bring peace.
Discussion on Answer
What tension is there here? That’s what I wrote, isn’t it?
The tension you referred to concerned the attacker’s responsibility for the measures taken against him. I mean the attacker’s responsibility for the very act of assault, as opposed to our responsibility to take precautions against the assault.
Examples:
– The government installed magnetometers while knowing, as something close to certain, that a terrorist attack would occur (let us assume). A terrorist attack did indeed occur. Can any responsibility for the attack be attributed to the government?
– The Knesset decided to withdraw from Gush Katif while knowing, as something close to certain, that this would cost Israeli blood (let us assume). Can responsibility for that be attributed to the government?
– A woman dressed revealingly while knowing, statistically, that this raises her level of risk of being attacked (let us assume). Can any responsibility for that be attributed to her?
I mean the tension between our duty to be cautious in light of the anticipated danger of violence following the placement of the magnetometers, and the responsibility of the violent person who reacts to the magnetometer.
In other words—can one distinguish between our responsibility to be careful about taking (legitimate) actions when the danger of a violent reaction is foreseeable, and the responsibility of the attacker, who is reacting to our actions?
Can we expect ourselves to be cautious without that always amounting to blaming the victim?