Execution Is Not a Solution: A Call for Shared Reflection on a Safer Future
By Dr. Nabil Kukali
In times of fear and uncertainty, societies often search for decisive and immediate solutions to ensure security. Stricter punishments, including the death penalty, may appear to offer such answers. Yet in the context of prolonged conflict, it becomes essential to pause and ask deeper questions—not only about what is possible, but about what is effective and sustainable.
The recent decision by the Israeli government to move toward implementing the death penalty must be understood within this context. While it may be framed as a step toward strengthening deterrence, it also raises broader questions about its potential impact in a deeply complex and sensitive environment.
Can a severe punishment like execution truly end violence?
Or might it, unintentionally, deepen and prolong it?
This is not a question for one side alone. It concerns everyone seeking security—whether Israeli or Palestinian.
Between Security and Justice: How Do We Understand Punishment?
For some, harsher penalties are seen as a necessary tool for deterrence.
However, experiences from around the world suggest that the relationship between severe punishment and reduced violence is neither simple nor consistent.
This raises a shared and fundamental question:
Can security be achieved through punishment alone, or does it require a broader sense of justice?
How Are Policies Perceived on the Ground?
In any conflict, it is not enough to consider the intentions behind policies; it is equally important to understand how they are perceived by those affected.
Findings from the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO) indicate that approximately 74.4% of respondents believe that moving toward the death penalty could undermine prospects for peace.
This figure is not about assigning blame, but about understanding a gap in perception:
How can a policy intended to enhance security be experienced as increasing fear or injustice?
This leads to another important question for both sides:
Can any policy succeed if it is not perceived as fair by the other side?
The Cycle of Violence: How Does It Begin and Continue?
In stable environments, punishment may have a deterrent effect.
In conflict settings, however, the dynamics are far more complex.
Does escalation lead to de-escalation?
Or does it generate new reactions and reproduce violence in different forms?
Here lies a question that is both human and political:
What happens when those punished become symbols in the eyes of their communities?
Does the problem end—or does a more complex story begin?
Impact on Future Generations
Laws do not only affect the present—they shape the future.
What message do young people receive when they see justice understood differently by each side?
What kind of societies emerge when there is no shared sense of fairness?
A Call for Shared Reflection
This article does not offer definitive answers. Instead, it invites reflection on essential questions:
- Can security be achieved without building trust?
- Is deterrence sufficient in the absence of justice?
- Can one side feel secure if the other feels injustice?
- And ultimately, can there be peace without mutual understanding of how each side perceives reality?
Conclusion
True security is not built on force alone, but on a sense of justice and human dignity.
In an increasingly complex world, the greatest challenge may not be making quick decisions, but pausing to ask the harder question:
Do we seek immediate solutions—or a sustainable future?
* Dr. Nabil Kukali is the Founder and President of the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO) since 1994, with extensive experience in public opinion research and the analysis of its impact on conflict dynamics and public policy.
Arabic Version (click here)
