New prescription

Jessica Montell’s “Ending punitive demolitions” (Observations, September 8) makes the case for ending the demolition of terrorists’ homes by referring to a military committee’s 2005 findings saying the practice’s deterrent value was wanting. Yet she selectively ignores the sources cited in reporter Adam Rasgon’s “A closer look at West Bank home demolitions” (Frontlines, September 1).

In it, Post columnist Lior Ackerman, a former Shin Bet counter-terrorism expert, is cited as saying that “demolitions absolutely deter” and are “highly effective.” Ackerman also says he believes parents who understand their homes could be demolished are more likely to take action to prevent an attack or notify the authorities.

Rasgon further corroborates Ackerman’s perspective, obliquely referring to the May 2014 Hebrew University/Northwestern University “Counter-Suicide-Terrorism” study, which found that suicide terror attacks had decreased after there was an increase in home demolitions.

If Montell really wants to avoid demolitions, here is my prescription: A convicted terrorist – and his family, if they had prior knowledge and failed to act – should be sentenced to building the victim’s family a new home, preferably in a community such as Efrat or Ariel. That could be the best deterrent of all.

JEFF DAUBE Jerusalem The writer is director of the Israel office of the Zionist Organization of America.