The terrorist attack at the entrance to the Ariel industrial zone is yet another example of the challenges faced by the security forces and illustrates once again Israel's advantages and disadvantages in the war against terror, as well as the unfortunate fact that terrorist attacks are likely to continue in the future without any connection to the political identity of the government in Jerusalem.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Despite the difficult period that Israel is undergoing and the relatively high number of attacks and casualties in comparison to recent years, the IDF and the Shin Bet are the best in the world at fighting terrorism. The symbiosis between intelligence and technology on the one hand and operational capabilities at the last mile (which could ground forces, a missile fired from the air, or other means) on the other is unique in its efficiency and accuracy, and security forces from around the world come to learn from Israel's experience and try to replicate it. Anyone that claims otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. No one is tying anyone's hands. If there is intelligence on an attack, we will do everything to prevent it. There is a debate over what constitutes legitimate means to prevent an attack, but it is entirely professional, not political.
The world of terrorist attacks is divided into organized terrorism and lone-wolf terrorism. The first is far more dangerous because it has a methodology and an ideology, as well as resources, financing, and weapons (from explosives to guns). The second is limited in its scope because there is a limit to the measure of damage that a lone wolf terrorist can cause, especially as for the most part they are armed with less lethal means.
Organized terrorism is easier to penetrate because of the number of participants and processes, but fighting it is often dangerous because of the weapons and the fact that the terrorists have nothing to lose. Lone wolf terrorism is far more difficult to prevent because often the idea of carrying out an attack is in the mind of a person who does not share their thoughts with anyone.
Six years ago, the Shin Bet and the IDF managed through a number of means (mostly technological and intelligence-based) to develop a methodology that has significantly reduced lone-wolf terrorism. The challenge today is to adapt it to the current reality and as always, to close the security gaps through which assailants are able to penetrate. This has to happen through increased forces and resources and primarily through a stubborn effort to train soldiers, security guards, and civilians, to make them realize that stopping an attack is dependent on the way they function in real-time.
The myriad of political declarations should be left aside. Not only do they not contribute anything to the war on terror, but they can also escalate the situation on the ground. Israel has been dealing with terrorism since before its independence and will be required to do so in the future as well. Anybody that says they have immediate solutions is misleading the public.
Seeking to weaken Israel
It is difficult to exaggerate the gravity and danger of the investigation that the United States is launching into the death of Al Jazeera correspondent Shireen Abu Akleh during an IDF operation in Jenin in May. The Americans have said that it is a technical investigation launched by the Justice Department after 57 Members of Congress signed a petition calling for the FBI to do so, as is the case in any incident where an American citizen is killed. But there is a serious suspicion that more is at play. That is how we should also relate to the response of senior elements within the administration, in the White House the State Department, and the National Security Council who all claim they didn't know about the investigation.
The United States is a country where investigations are not launched ad hoc, certainly not when they deal with sensitive and volatile issues pertaining to a close ally such as Israel. FBI Director Christopher Wray is not a tyro and he knows full well the significance of the investigation to be carried out by his organization. Obviously, it was clear to him that Israel would protest from the top down, and for that reason alone it is unlikely that he would have sprung a surprise on senior administration officials.
A year ago, there was a similar incident when the Department of Commerce placed two Israeli cyber companies (NSO and Candiru) claiming they had sold offensive cyber software that damaged American national security interests. Then as well, there were claims this decision had been made at lower levels without the knowledge of senior administration officials. But it quickly transpired that it was part of a broad and troubling policy to undermine Israel's offensive cyber industry. The Americans claimed vociferously that move was aimed at defending human rights and democracy, but anybody who is knowledgeable about the affair could not avoid the impression that this was in fact a purposeful decision to weaken Israeli capabilities and enable American dominance in the field.
The present case is worrying for a number of reasons. The first is the precedent set by Israel's closest and most intimate ally deciding to investigate IDF operational activities without asking itself whether it even has the tools and the capabilities to do so – it doesn't and most certainly not when it won't be allowed to investigate the soldiers involved in the incident. The very fact of the investigation will open the floodgates for far more hostile and radical elements to go down the same path and as a result – endanger the freedom of operation of IDF officers and soldiers.
The second is operational: Israel operates against its enemies at its discretion without requiring Washington's authorization. That is a matter of principle. If the IDF, the Shin Bet, and Mossad brackets can't operate freely in Judea and Samaria without fearing prosecution, they will not be able to operate in the future in Damascus and Tehran. That is exactly what Israel's enemies wish to achieve. The administration's investigation helps them with their goal.
The third aspect is judicial: The IDF conducted a thorough investigation of the event with only partial cooperation from the Palestinian Authority. It acted in complete transparency following the investigation, contrary to Israel's interest, and declared that Abu Akleh was most likely killed by a shot fired from a soldier in the Duvdevan unit which was involved in a clash with Palestinian gunmen in Jenin. The IDF expressed its sorrow for the incident, which was also investigated by the Military Police (as is the case in deadly incidents). When the investigation was over and all the material was brought was presented to the Military Advocate General Major-General Yifat Tomer who ruled that there had not been criminal negligence and that the entire event took place within the framework of a military operation and that none of the soldiers had purposely fired at the journalist.
Who will put out the fire?
The information and findings of the investigation were presented to representatives of the administration and should have satisfied their concerns. The fact that this did not happen, raises fears that the FBI investigation is not a professional matter, but rather a political issue. This is something that should concern Israel not only because of the changing of the political guard here but also because of the planned attack on the judicial system. Until now, the independence of the High Court of Justice and the judicial system are what have shielded Israel against the possibility of international investigations and trials on matters such as targeted killings, settlements, and restrictions on Palestinian individual liberties. If the impression arises that Israel is harming this judicial independence, there will be many in the world who will be happy to challenge Israel on these issues and others.
Israel should therefore act to bring an end to the FBI investigation as quickly as possible. This should be done through all possible channels and lobbies in Washington and primarily through quiet talks between the diplomatic and security establishments of both countries. This is another prism through which the appointment of Israel's next defense minister should be seen in order to realize just how imperative it is that the position be occupied by someone who is level headed and will have their calls answered in Washington and other capitals around the world and in the region.
Netanyahu is highly experienced and understands this well. It is obvious to him that there will be further crises and that the way to extinguish them is with a glass of water and not by pouring hundreds of gallons of fuel on the fire.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
