The state of emergency Jerusalem Post editorial (November 22) - Yesterday, the cabinet took one small step toward eliminating an embarrassment to Israeli democracy: the existence of a legal "state of emergency" since the day the state was born. After 51 years, fixing this situation may not seem to be a high priority, but the process should not be allowed to drag out longer than necessary. At the request of Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, the cabinet decided to recommend to the Knesset extending the existing state of emergency for only six months when it expires on January 26, 2000. The cabinet action came in the wake of an October 4 ruling by the High Court of Justice, which ordered the Knesset to explain why the state of emergency should not be revoked. The implications of ending the state of emergency are both practical and symbolic, or psychological. On psychological level, its ending will say to Israelis and the world that Israel is no longer a country under siege. On a practical level, the end of the state of emergency will force the revision or abandonment of dozens of laws. The two most significant practices that will have to be rethought are administrative detentions and "back-to-work" orders for strikers in critical economic sectors. In some democracies, such as the US, some public sector strikes are simply prohibited by law, without any reference to a state of emergency. Israel will have to decide under what conditions strikes in vital sectors will be restricted even after the state of emergency is lifted. Concerning administrative detentions, the lifting of the state of emergency will force a similar reckoning, which should include reconsideration of another outdated piece of security-oriented legislation: the 1945 Defense (Emergency) Regulations. These Regulations were issued by the then-ruling British Mandatory government of Palestine in the context of World War II, under great protest from the Jewish leadership of the time. A few years later, the new State of Israel was indeed at war, and kept the regulations on the books. But even after the War of Independence ended and until today, the defense regulations grant far-reaching powers to the government practically unheard of in democratic countries. Until 1979, the military could detain people for periods of six months without charge, and extend the detentions almost indefinitely. After that year, the power of administrative detention was established in an Israeli law in more limited form. Under the new law, the military could only detain people during a state of emergency, and only for 48 hours, after which the detention could be extended for three months by court order. If the state of emergency is lifted next July, administrative detention as an institution will either fall by the wayside, or be reinstituted under non-emergency Israeli law. As of now, the Justice Ministry is expected to recommend to the Knesset that administrative detention not be dropped entirely as a tool, at least temporarily, even after the state of emergency is lifted. The thinking behind this is that Israel is not at war, nor do the existing security threats justify a state of emergency. On the other hand, Israel still faces security threats beyond those normally faced by a nation fully at peace. As a result, there is an impetus to try to have our cake and eat it too: eliminate the state of emergency and, for now, keep administrative detention. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel objects to this approach, arguing that the power of administrative detention should be limited to a true state of emergency, which does not currently exist. Like the debate over whether to allow the General Security Service to use "moderate physical pressure" in interrogations, this is one of the tough dilemmas of a democracy facing the threat of terrorism. When faced with such a dilemma, absolutism is not a useful starting point. It should not be assumed that the draconian tools provided by the defense regulations or by the state of emergency - including the powers of censorship, banning organizations, and administrative detention - are efficient tools in the fight against terrorism. Censorship, in particular, in the age of the Internet, has become, in most cases, obsolete to the point of ridiculousness. The effectiveness of other tools that compromise civil rights has also been seriously questioned, and realistic alternatives exist in some cases. By the same token, even after every effort has been made to avoid them, some less than desirable methods used judiciously - not as a routine practice - may need to be at the disposal of those who must confront the still daily threat of terrorism. Even if some compromises must be made, it is important that a long overdue commitment is being made to end the state of emergency. This commitment should be coupled with an equally important effort to finally strike the 1945 defense regulations from the law books. Upholding civil rights should not be seen as a threat to our security, but as a contribution to the ultimate source of our strength as a nation, our democratic values.