| _version_ | 1866901151011569664 |
|---|---|
| author | Nenad, Janković |
| author_facet | Nenad, Janković |
| contents | <p><em><span>The goal of this research is to explain the political rationalization of security measures implemented by Israel, to look at the relationship between the effectiveness of security measures and the consequences for the state, and to consider a specific Israeli model in which the state was forced to view the terrorist activities of organizations fighting for the liberation of Palestine in the context of broader armed conflicts. The results of the research showed that Israel's fight against terrorism is not based only on military and intelligence operations, but also on the political-legal rationalization of implemented measures and procedures, as well as that there is no clearly defined border between the fight against terrorism and armed conflicts with non-state actors in Israel.<br>During the research, the following conclusions were reached -</span></em><span> </span><em><span>over the decades of fighting terrorism, Israel has built one of the most effective security systems, based on the close integration of the army, special forces, and security and intelligence services. Mandatory military service and a strongly entrenched culture of national security have enabled the constant mobilization of society, while institutional specialization and the development of modern technologies have created a system that can respond to various forms of challenges and risks. Israel's security doctrine, based on a combination of preventive action, intelligence superiority, and rapid military action, has provided the state with the capacity to defend its existence in conditions of permanent instability. Thus, the security system has become not only an instrument of protection, but also a key pillar of national security.</span></em><span> </span><em><span>The struggle with various terrorist organizations, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, represents a constant security challenge for Israel. Each of these organizations is characterized by a distinct ideological matrix and operational approach to the fight against Israel, which has required the Israeli response to be tailored to specific threats. The operation of these organizations within a broader regional and international context has imposed the need for Israel to develop complex mechanisms for combating non-state actors and asymmetric threats. In the process, the state has gradually perfected methods of prevention, control, and direct intervention, creating a model of confrontation that is simultaneously military, intelligence, and political. The role of the Knesset in creating legal frameworks, Supreme Court decisions that draw the line between necessity and excess, and public debates on human rights have created an institutional framework within which security strategies must be constantly justified and adjusted. Through these mechanisms, Israel seeks to strike a balance between protecting the state and preserving the democratic order. This balance, although often contested, is an essential element of the legitimacy and rationalization of the fight against terrorism. Israeli experience shows that there is no clearly defined boundary between the fight against terrorism and armed conflict. Conflicts with non-state actors, which use military methods but operate outside the classical category of war, have led to the development of approaches that combine elements of police measures and war operations. This ambivalence raises numerous legal issues, from defining the status of members of a terrorist organization to the application of international humanitarian law. In such a context, Israel has developed a practice that seeks to preserve operational superiority and legal legitimacy.</span></em></p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_19109106 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | srp |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | POLITIČKI ASPEKT BORBE PROTIV TERORIZMA U IZRAELU Nenad, Janković <p><em><span>The goal of this research is to explain the political rationalization of security measures implemented by Israel, to look at the relationship between the effectiveness of security measures and the consequences for the state, and to consider a specific Israeli model in which the state was forced to view the terrorist activities of organizations fighting for the liberation of Palestine in the context of broader armed conflicts. The results of the research showed that Israel's fight against terrorism is not based only on military and intelligence operations, but also on the political-legal rationalization of implemented measures and procedures, as well as that there is no clearly defined border between the fight against terrorism and armed conflicts with non-state actors in Israel.<br>During the research, the following conclusions were reached -</span></em><span> </span><em><span>over the decades of fighting terrorism, Israel has built one of the most effective security systems, based on the close integration of the army, special forces, and security and intelligence services. Mandatory military service and a strongly entrenched culture of national security have enabled the constant mobilization of society, while institutional specialization and the development of modern technologies have created a system that can respond to various forms of challenges and risks. Israel's security doctrine, based on a combination of preventive action, intelligence superiority, and rapid military action, has provided the state with the capacity to defend its existence in conditions of permanent instability. Thus, the security system has become not only an instrument of protection, but also a key pillar of national security.</span></em><span> </span><em><span>The struggle with various terrorist organizations, such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, represents a constant security challenge for Israel. Each of these organizations is characterized by a distinct ideological matrix and operational approach to the fight against Israel, which has required the Israeli response to be tailored to specific threats. The operation of these organizations within a broader regional and international context has imposed the need for Israel to develop complex mechanisms for combating non-state actors and asymmetric threats. In the process, the state has gradually perfected methods of prevention, control, and direct intervention, creating a model of confrontation that is simultaneously military, intelligence, and political. The role of the Knesset in creating legal frameworks, Supreme Court decisions that draw the line between necessity and excess, and public debates on human rights have created an institutional framework within which security strategies must be constantly justified and adjusted. Through these mechanisms, Israel seeks to strike a balance between protecting the state and preserving the democratic order. This balance, although often contested, is an essential element of the legitimacy and rationalization of the fight against terrorism. Israeli experience shows that there is no clearly defined boundary between the fight against terrorism and armed conflict. Conflicts with non-state actors, which use military methods but operate outside the classical category of war, have led to the development of approaches that combine elements of police measures and war operations. This ambivalence raises numerous legal issues, from defining the status of members of a terrorist organization to the application of international humanitarian law. In such a context, Israel has developed a practice that seeks to preserve operational superiority and legal legitimacy.</span></em></p> |
| title | POLITIČKI ASPEKT BORBE PROTIV TERORIZMA U IZRAELU |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19109106 |