The murderous attack by two seemingly nondescript Palestinian cousins on worshippers in a Jerusalem synagogue underscores the new nature of the threat facing Israel.
Indeed, the recent spate of Palestinian attacks against Jews requires a context in order to understand that new threat as well as the tools Israel reasonably requires to confront it.
On the surface, at least, the current attacks seem to differ from those perpetrated by Hamas, which gave them a clearly identifiable, ongoing coordinating infrastructure. They also differ from the attacks that defined the first and second intifadas, which, though somewhat loosely coordinated, were characterized by a discernible cell-like cooperating apparatus with a continuing agenda.
The recent perpetrators, however, present themselves as individuals coming together at a particular moment almost serendipitously. The differences are significant in the sense that Israel’s ability to effectively respond must take into account the absence of readily recognizable targets appropriate for retaliation. We suggest that Israel would be acting entirely reasonably if it took an expansive view of what responses are proper under the circumstances.
Because of the disparate nature of the perpetrators, who are also relatively young, and given the lack of more traditional targets and the reverence Palestinians have for their homes, one now hears talk of Israel returning to a policy of destroying the houses of terrorists’ families.
This practice had been largely abandoned in the face of charges of collective punishment and undue harshness. Yet the policy seems even more critical now as a means of creating deterrence. And there is more than just a utilitarian justification. Parents and close relatives are often quoted in the media describing those responsible for terrorist acts as heroes and martyrs. Indeed, some parents are heard to say they regret not having more children to offer up for such martyrdom. This sort of incitement reflects a nurturing environment for acts of terror.
Similarly, there is no principled reason to ignore the complicity of Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah movement through their continued incitement. Prime Minister Netanyahu was entirely correct when he accused Mr. Abbas of “fanning the flames” of terror with lies about Israel supposedly seeking to change the status quo on the Temple Mount.
Mr. Abbas has referred to Jews who visit the Temple Mount as a “herd of cattle.” He has harangued Fatah activists visiting him in his office: “We must prevent [Jews] from entering the Noble Sanctuary (the Arabic term for the Temple Mount) by all means.” Plainly, he was heard and paid attention to.
Further, after a three-month-old Israeli child was murdered less than a month ago when a Palestinian named Abdel al-Shaludi slammed his car into a crowd of people waiting at a Jerusalem light rail stop, Mr. Abbas said nothing in condemnation.
He said nothing even when his Fatah movement published a poster celebrating the killing: “The Silwan branch of Fatah honors the heroic martyr Abdel Rahman Al- Shaludi…”
And he said nothing when a Fatah Central Committee statement referred to the “hero” Shaludi. Nor did he rebuke those who issued calls for attacks against Israelis.
His office did finally issue a grudging condemnatory statement this week in the wake of the Jerusalem synagogue massacre – but only after Secretary of State John Kerry’s stinging comments.
Mr. Kerry said the attack was “a pure result of incitement” and called upon “Palestinians at every single level to condemn this in the most powerful terms,” adding that “they must take serious steps to restrain any kind of incitement….”
Mr. Abbas’ statement, however, said merely, that “The presidency condemns the attack on Jewish worshippers in their place of prayer and condemns the killing of civilians no matter who is doing it.”
