Myths, Facts, and Wishful Thinking in Responding to Palestinian Violence
by Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 311
October 12, 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The recent wave of terrorism has seen illusion peddlers
take center stage. While some are true believers, others seek only to
promote personal, political, potentially dangerous agendas. Regional
realities mandate a different, more prudent approach.

The series of terrorist attacks throughout the Sukkot holiday, especially
the brutal murders of a Jewish couple in Samaria and two Jewish men in
Jerusalem’s Old City, seem to have become the podium from which a slew of
public figures, from both the Right and the Left, seek to peddle their
illusions. Some of these individuals truly believe in what they are saying,
while others seek only to promote their personal agendas and worldviews,
despite their irrelevance.

These individuals have made various statements over the past few days,
including the following:

“We need a bold diplomatic initiative and courageous leadership to end the
[Palestinian] despair that results in these murders.”

Really? It is well known that in the midst of the political process that
culminated in the 1993 Oslo Accords, when Israel ceded vast territories,
terrorism reached new heights. It was when the Oslo Accords were signed and
the government was pursuing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in earnest
that explosive devices and suicide bombers exploded nationwide, killing Jews
indiscriminately.

There is no real proof that “diplomatic initiatives,” bold or otherwise, can
quell terrorism. Some would even argue that the opposite is true, which it
is, especially with regards to organizations such as Hamas and Islamic
Jihad.

The chanting of the leftist mantra that “negotiations breed calm” is
tantamount to a mystical ritual that has nothing to do with reality,
regardless of the followers who believe in it.

“Regional peace could be used as leverage to have the moderate Arab states
pressure the Palestinians to enable them to realize our shared interests.
Cooperation with the region’s nations is the key to a peace deal.”

As attractive as this theory may be, it is not grounded in reality. Firstly,
because the so-called “moderate” countries hold less than moderate views on
some key issues, most notably Jerusalem; and secondly, it is clear to anyone
who understands the workings of the Middle East that on most issues, these
countries have no interest in pressuring the Palestinians. No Arab leader
worth his salt will relinquish anything on behalf of the Palestinians,
regardless of how “moderate” he may seem. Moreover, even if he wanted to,
the Arab street will prevent such moves.

“Massive settlement construction is the only appropriate response to
terrorism. It will deter the Arabs and decrease violence. It is the
settlement freeze that leads to terrorism.”

Such statements make me wonder if even those making them believe what they
say. They know that settlement construction has never contributed to a
decrease in terrorist activity, and there is no proof — none whatsoever —
that anyone has ever shelved a terrorist plot over a settlement freeze.

Such statements seek only to take advantage of a difficult situation to
promote a political agenda, which while legitimate, is ill-timed. Those
endorsing settlement construction do so regardless of terrorism, and using
this terrible time to push it further is just an excuse, and a poor one at
that.

The problem is that the overall atmosphere has a powerful effect, and the
government could find itself in a situation where this terrible excuse is
somehow considered during the decision-making process. Responsible
individuals, whose vision stretches beyond the short-term approval of 1,000
housing units in Judea and Samaria, must remember that Israel is waging a
difficult battle in the international arena, and making hasty decisions
because despicable murderers spill Jewish blood may have far-reaching
ramifications.

“The problem is the lack of significant military response. Deterrence has
been eroded and the military must be allowed to operate forcefully.”

This is the emotional reaction of those who are struggling to deal with the
situation, and those cynical enough to exploit security tensions to lambaste
the leadership. I doubt any defense official thinks the problem lies in the
need for a more forceful reaction.

In most similar cases, a more forceful response would solve nothing. For
example, you cannot shoot an Arab on the streets of the Old City before he
pulls out a knife. What directive should have been given to the police, what
change to the rules of engagements could have prevented the stabbing attack
near the Lions’ Gate? The terrorist assumed he would be killed during the
attack — most terrorists assume as much — so what more could have been done
to deter him? Does anyone really believe that if Israel had hundreds of dead
Palestinians to deal with it would somehow fare better or that terrorism
would somehow diminish?

Anyone seriously under that impression is dangerously deluded. Additional
casualties in the hundreds would see Israel facing uncontrollable, raging
Palestinian crowds and even more terrorism. Contrary to inflammatory
recommendations, Israel cannot and should not launch a destructive
onslaught, because it is both unethical and ineffective.

Specific operational tactics, such as sniper fire against rioters throwing
stones and firebombs, can and should be used and perfected, and additional
troops should be deployed to certain flashpoints, such as roads across Judea
and Samaria, but we must remember that such deployment may hinder
preparations for the next round of violence in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.

Unlike the time between the Oslo Accords and 2002’s Operation Defensive
Shield in Judea and Samaria, the military is under no operational
restrictions. The fact is that the solution to this complex situation does
not lie in military might, but rather in better intelligence, which in some
cases can be the difference between a foiled attack and bloodshed.

No one is claiming that there is anything restricting intelligence-gathering
efforts, but in some cases, especially when a “lone wolf” who is not
affiliated with any terrorist organization is involved, even intelligence is
useless. Security forces cannot be everywhere all the time, so it is pure
luck and the rapid response of bystanders that determine the outcome of lone
terrorist attacks.

“The attacker always takes the initiative and nothing can be done about it.”

The Palestinians have no illusions when it comes to the immense power the
IDF wields in the Middle East in general and opposite them in particular.
Some of them are willing to die fighting the “occupation,” especially when
it comes to anything perceived as a threat to the Al-Aqsa mosque, namely the
Temple Mount.

Some among the Palestinians are willing to abuse this zeal, especially the
northern branch of the Islamic Movement, and some on the Israeli side are
providing them with plenty of excuses for their nefarious acts, such as the
arson attack in Duma.

One fact must be reiterated: We, the Jews, are the sovereigns. We are the
stronger party in this fight, and no wave of terrorism, horrific as it may
be, will change that basic element in the equation.

During the British Mandate, when the government often sided with the Arab
rioters, the Jewish resistance groups Irgun and Lehi were right to mount a
forceful response against murders. Now, we no longer have to prove anything.
Israel is a strong, sovereign state, and as such it must use its force
prudently, only when its results have proven benefits, and only as a last
resort.

This article originally appeared in Israel Hayom.

Maj. Gen. (res.) Yaakov Amidror is the Greg and Anne Rosshandler Senior
Fellow at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, and former national
security advisor to the Prime Minister. He is also a fellow at JINSA’s
Gemunder Center for Defense and Strategy. He served 36 years in senior IDF
posts, including commander of the Military Colleges, military secretary to
the Minister of Defense, director of the Intelligence Analysis Division in
Military Intelligence, and chief intelligence officer of the Northern
Command.

BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the
Greg Rosshandler Family