Monthly Brief, Judicial Reform Divides Israeli Public

By Yaakov Lappin

The Israeli people and the country’s political system faced a level of division and polarization many observers were calling unprecedented on February 21, after the government led by the Likud and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu voted to approve the first reading of a judicial overhaul package introduced by Justice Minister Yariv Levin.

Tens of thousands of demonstrators arrived in Jerusalem on February 20 to protest the bills, and over 130,000 protesters amassed in Tel Aviv on February 19 to express their opposition.

President Isaac Herzog said swaths of the country were in "mourning” the day after the Knesset vote, adding that the onus is on the right-wing governing coalition to reach out and negotiate with the opposition. Netanyahu, for his part, described the vote as “a great day and a great night.”

The big question going forward is whether the government and opposition will find a way, in the coming weeks, to water down the draft passed in the first reading in order to reach a compromise based on a formula offered by Herzog earlier in February.  

The legislation aims to amend Basic Law: The Judiciary to cement government control over judicial appointments and revoke the High Court's ability to review Basic Laws. The next planned stage of the overhaul is a judicial override law that would enable a simple Knesset majority to override the Supreme Court if it rules a law as being illegal. 

Iran found to be enriching uranium to highest level to date

Israel’s ongoing domestic political crisis overshadowed dramatic news out of Iran in recent days.  Bloomberg reported on February 20 that the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency is attempting to determine how Iran obtained uranium enriched to 84% purity — the highest level discovered by UN inspectors in the country to date, only 6% below the level of military-grade uranium that is required to produce a nuclear weapon.

It is important to note that according to Israeli military assessments, Iran remains around two years from the construction of a fully functional nuclear warhead, but that enriching to 90% represents a significant and alarming milestone on the path to becoming a nuclear-armed state.

Bloomberg cited two senior diplomats in its report. Iran previously informed the IAEA that its centrifuges were designed to enrich uranium to 60% purity. It has been enriching uranium to the 20% and 60% levels and is believed to have enough uranium, which, if enriched further to 90%, would be sufficient for four to five nuclear bombs.

The development comes a month after the United States Military and the Israel Defense Forces held a large-scale joint war drill that practiced scenarios of combat against an enemy that closely resembled Iran.

New level of Israeli – Emirati defense cooperation unveiled

As the shadow of Iran’s threatening activities continues to fall on Israel and Gulf Arab Sunni states, Israeli and Emirati companies unveiled on February 20 a jointly developed unmanned sea vessel in Abu Dhabi, in what is being described as a historic first. The system was unveiled at the biennial IDEX exhibition, which is attracting over 1,300 companies from 65 countries for the Middle East's largest defense conference.

State-owned Israeli Aerospace Industries, the Edge Group – a consortium of 25 Emirati defense companies –  and the Abu Dhabi Ship Building (ADSB) shipyard unveiled the vessel at the IDEX naval exhibition.

According to an IAI statement, the jointly produced autonomous vessel is outfitted with sensors, sonar, and imaging systems that are integrated into a remotely operated unified command and control system that does not require human intervention.

While ADSB designed the platform and is integrating the on-board sensors and control systems, IAI is designing the autonomous control system and the variety of dedicated sensors.

The unmanned sea vessel can be used for Intelligence gathering, tracking, observation, border and coastal surveillance, mine detection, submarine detection, anti-submarine warfare, and the deployment of drones.

The move represents another step toward the formation of an Israeli-Gulf-Sunni-Arab bloc committed to mutual cooperation, capability sharing, and defense against Iran.

Yaakov Lappin is an Israel-based military affairs correspondent and analyst. He provides insight and analysis for a number of media outlets, including Jane's Defense Weekly, a leading global military affairs magazine, and JNS.org, a news agency with wide distribution among Jewish communities in the U.S. Read full bio here.

Israel, Gulf states have yet to fulfill potential of defense sales

 

By YAIR RAMATI & Yaakov Lappin

Israel and most of the Sunni Arab countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (made up of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, and Qatar) have yet to utilize the full potential that exists for future defense and technology cooperation.

Israel maintains official ties with some GCC states but not others, and each relationship has a  unique nature. Oman is known as the Switzerland of the Middle East, and while it flirted with the idea of becoming an Abraham Accords state, it recently bowed to Iranian pressure and criminalized ties with Israel. The most significant milestone will occur when Israel and Saudi Arabia are able to initiate a more intensive and open relationship, which goes far beyond mutual normalization, and expands into technological and defense cooperation.

Diplomatically, this might strain the positions of Jordan (which appears to be in competition with Saudi Arabia over influence on the Temple Mount) and the Palestinian Authority, which could be upset by an Israeli–Saudi thaw before a breakthrough in attempts to reach a new Israeli–PA arrangement.

From a defense cooperation perspective, however, Israeli cooperation with the Gulf states in general, and Israeli – Saudi cooperation specifically, has a large potential that has yet to be fulfilled. Examples include the sharing of data from various defense sensors possessed by multiple countries to provide early alerts of Iranian threats, cooperation on intercepting common threats like Iranian missile and UAV attacks, and the sale of Israeli military capabilities to Gulf partners, like radars and surface to air missile interceptors, as well as modern laser systems. Such sales could even decrease the Gulf states dependence on American technology, creating a further motivation for them.

Israel’s September 2021 entry into the US’s CENTCOM framework, which covers the Middle East, can act as a useful platform for American-orchestrated Israeli–Gulf defense cooperation. While this will not amount to a Middle Eastern NATO with its own mutual assistance clause, it can still fundamentally transform the dynamics of the Middle East in the long run.

If Israel is able to break the official ice with Saudi Arabia, this would constitute a paradigm shift in the region compared with the current geo-political situation. Already, the 2020 Abraham Accords, signed between Israel and the UAE and Bahrain, helped create knock-on shifts, such as Turkey’s change of attitude and a subsequent reduction in Ankara’s hostility toward Israel and Gulf states. A Saudi–Israeli accord would change the entire regional map.

An expansion of Israeli–Gulf ties would be powered to a major degree by the threat posed by Iran to the entire region, as well as the spread of Iranian-made weapons to the Tehran-led radical axis, and the expected arrival of Russian technology, such as Sukhoi SU-35 fighter jets, into Iran’s possessions.

Each of the six GCC countries is unique, and Israel has diverse types of relations with them. Kuwait, for example, has no formal ties with Israel, but low-profile business relationships do exist. Bahrain is economically weaker than other, wealthier GCC members, but Manama enjoys long standing good ties with Jerusalem, including defense ties. Qatar, for its part, is a problematic GCC member that plays double games with Israel and its adversaries – but eventually, Israel will need to learn how to maneuver among conflicting interests, and how to ‘dance’ with this state too.

Saudi Arabia remains the undisputed holy grail as far as Israel is concerned. One reason that this is the case is because the kingdom, under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), is preparing to swap its large and powerful oil-based economy for a technology-based economy. This creates enormous potential for Israeli–Saudi cooperation. In addition, the Saudis are hungry for military capabilities to defend themselves against Iranian aggression. Riyadh has been purchasing ballistic weapons, guns, and drones from China, and recently attack unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) from Turkey.

These realities create a need for Israel and the US to reassess their total commitment to enforcing every clause of the traditional Qualitative Military Edge policy, which is backed by Congressional law that obligates the US not to sell any military capabilities to Middle Eastern clients if the sales can theoretically challenge Israeli military superiority.

Adherence to the QME has become almost religious in sections of some Israeli defense establishment, to the point where the most marginal of risks are exaggerated.

Assisting a Gulf ally like the UAE in acquiring F-35s is more important, for example, than enforcing every letter of the QME. The benefit of seeing a new regional partner emerge with capabilities that can challenge Iran outweighs the miniscule risk of such aircraft falling into hostile hands

In the coming years, Israel and its new Gulf partners, as well as future ones, have a historical opportunity to build new alliances, based not only on normalization, but also on putting advanced capabilities in the hands of Gulf partners who have good reason to prepare together for the threat posed by Iran. 

Yair Ramati concluded his four-year service as Director of IMDO, the government agency charged with the development, production, and the delivery of missile defense systems including: Iron Dome, David's Sling and the Arrow weapons system, to the State of Israel. Mr. Ramati received his Bachelor's degree in Aeronautical Engineering. He earned a Master's Degree in Science and Engineering from the Technion, Israel. Read full bio here.

Yaakov Lappin provides insight and analysis for a number of media outlets, including JNS.org and a leading global military affairs magazine Jane's Defense Weekly. He is the author of Virtual Caliphate -
Exposing the Islamist state on the Internet. Read full bio here.

Ramadan to 75th Independence Day: A challenging period ahead

By Eitan Dangot

The murderous terrorist attack that tore through Jerusalem last Friday evening served as a stark reminder of the terrorism challenges faced by Israel. The shooting, in which seven civilians were murdered, was the latest and worst of several gun attacks over the past year and marks a peak in the latest round of the struggle between Israel and terrorist factions.

The arenas generating terrorism against Israel today are Judea and Samaria, eastern Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and from within Israel itself. A secondary front in this context of Palestinian terrorism is the Lebanese front, which stretches from Rosh Hanikra to the tri-border region where Israel, Lebanon and Syria meet, and where Hamas has operated in the past two years.

Globally, Israeli and Jewish overseas targets remain under threat, mainly from Iranian elements, Hezbollah and ISIS.

Judea and Samaria form the core of the terrorist escalation that Israel faces. The region is saturated with firearm attacks of the type seen in the deadly attack in Jerusalem’s Neveh Ya’acov neighborhood and bands together localized terrorist elements and lone attackers. It is filled with terrorists who are not affiliated to any one faction, thereby constituting a new trend.

Terrorist attacks in Judea and Samaria include shootings, stabbings and car rammings perpetrated by lone or localized groups of attackers. This forms an escalation from the wave of lone-wolf attackers in 2015, which was largely based on stabbings and car-ramming incidents.

A primary engine for encouraging and inciting terrorism is provided by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Hezbollah, who operate out of Gaza and Lebanon. It is they who orchestrate the modern terrorism model of 2022-2023.

New kinds of armed groups

In Judea and Samaria, a new kind of armed group has emerged that is defined by local geography and includes the participation of elements from PIJ, Hamas and Fatah. This model of terrorism is prominent in Jenin, where the Palestinian Authority lost control, along with control of the Jenin refugee camp, more than four years ago. On the ground, the Jenin terror model has served as an inspiration for others, as seen in Nablus and to a certain degree in Ramallah and its surroundings.

The PA’s loss of control over events in its territory, alongside the Palestinian population’s hatred and lack of faith in the Authority, due to its corruption and disdain for its people as well as deep national frustration, converge to create a precipitous decline in the security situation.

On the other hand, the majority of Palestinians in Judea and Samaria vote with their feet every morning by not taking part in terrorism and instead, going out to work – including over 130,000 of whom work in Israel or in the settlements. The economy is restraining mass terrorism and is distancing us from scenarios of a full-blown third intifada.

Such an intifada is still, however, on the horizon and could take the form of large numbers of shooting attacks and members of Fatah joining the cycle of violence.

Following the significant security operation in Jenin last Thursday, January 26, in which several terrorists were killed, resulting in a major blow to PIJ, which is leading the terrorism on the ground, the spotlight turned to the core threat: eastern Jerusalem.

For years, east Jerusalem has been a target for terrorist inciters. Over 300,000 east Jerusalem Palestinian residents are targeted with messages designed to generate hatred and promote attacks in the lone attacker format, as seen in neighboring Judea and Samaria.

In this context, the eastern Jerusalem population has advantages, as it is an intrinsic part of the fabric of Israeli life with unrestricted entry to greater Jerusalem thanks to Israeli residency cards, though not citizenship, out of their choice.

THE SITUATION of the eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods contributes to resentment against Israel. Many do not view themselves as part of Israel and the religious hatred that burns there is the core of the fire that is driving the current escalation. Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount is a frequent theme in the growing terror activities, which endanger Jewish civilians throughout the city and country.

Future mass casualty incidents are certainly a possibility. Security on this front is under the control of the Israel Police since Jerusalem is a domestic security zone.

Last Saturday’s shooting attack on an Israeli father and his son, perpetrated by a 13-year-old Palestinian boy in eastern Jerusalem armed with a handgun and resulting in serious injuries to both of them, testifies to the severity of the risk posed by the eastern Jerusalem population, the incitement and the deeds some members of this community are prepared to commit. A culture of hate is implanted in these youths from a young age.

Contact between eastern Jerusalem Palestinians and Israelis has not brought them closer together and even though many work in Israel, when they return home, they switch from economy mode to hatred mode.

Two central incitement elements are behind this trend: Hamas and the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, headed by Raed Saleh. Social media, mosques and even official channels are used to spread the hate.

In response, Israel’s government and security cabinet must immediately formulate a strategy and policy for the short-term and medium-term regarding eastern Jerusalem. In the first stage, a thickening and reinforcement of the security presence are required in areas bordering eastern Jerusalem and for the protection of sites that are prone to attacks.

Flooding the streets with security forces in sensitive areas will enable a rapid response to shooting attacks, potentially saving tens of lives in each attack.

To that end, the organizational structure and the technological and intelligence means used by the Israel Police must be upgraded, with more resources allocated and legal backing for the deployment of advanced capabilities used by the defense establishment in other arenas.

This will be a long process but it must begin now, in time for the sensitive period of Ramadan (beginning in March), Passover and Independence Day, a period in which Israel is committed to flattening the curb of terrorism.

The rapid demolition and sealing of homes used by terrorists, economic punishment against terrorist elements in eastern Jerusalem and examining the option of expelling family members of terrorists – a problematic legal procedure – should be on the table.

In Gaza, the situation is more clear-cut. Some 17,000 Gazans head out to work in Israel every day, the two million-strong Gazan population is behind a border and security barrier, the Iron Dome air defense batteries protect Israel from rocket fire and the threat that Hamas will pay a heavy price if it decides to escalate the situation all act as a deterrent.

Israel must decide on an offensive policy against those leading terrorist incitement from Hamas, PIJ and others, whether they live in Gaza or Lebanon. This will certainly lead to escalation but they are necessary in order to foil and deter terrorism.

Major-General Eitan Dangot concluded his extensive career as the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (C.O.G.A.T.) in 2014. Prior to that post he served as the Military Secretary to three Ministers of Defense; Shaul Mofaz, Amir Peretz and Ehud Barak. Read full bio here.

Benjamin Anthony's Israel Brief: Episode 1

The MirYam Institute is delighted to announce the launch of our new show: The Monthly Israel Brief. In this episode Benjamin speaks to Yaakov Lappin about this months events in the State of Israel. They discuss the horrific terror attacks, Iran & Yaakov's life story! 

Will Gantz Join BIBI And Be Israel's Responsible Adult

By Sharon Roffe Ofir

When National Unity Party chairman Benny Gantz remarked that “in democracy, one must know how to respect others,” he was alluding to his fellow opposition members. They were busy heckling incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as he delivered his swearing-in speech at the Knesset.

Since then, several weeks have passed, during which time, the new government has already managed to spark firestorms of controversy, but his comment still offers clues as to his future intentions.

In April 2020, during the corona pandemic, Gantz chose to set up a government with Netanyahu, describing the maneuver as a metaphorical ‘leap on a grenade’ on behalf of the national interest.

It didn’t take very long for Netanyahu to backstab Gantz, and for that government to disintegrate, leading to new elections. This time, Gantz believes he can dance at two weddings.

In July 2022, Gantz joined forces with former justice minister Gideon Sa’ar, and was quick to declare that his objective was to set up a national unity government of mainstream parties without representation of the political fringes. He also stressed that he had no intention of joining Netanyahu, by whom he had already been burned in the past.

Gantz’s dream of political unity had support even before the rise of the current right-wing government. Among its proponents was President Isaac Herzog, who understood that an extremist government could tear the country apart and take a wrecking ball to democracy.

Benny Gantz, judicial reform and Israeli democracy: Will he join with Netanyahu?

Following his election victory and during coalition negotiations, Netanyahu stated that this time around, he would form a fully right-wing government. Nevertheless, Netanyahu understands full well that his coalition faces many potential pitfalls, and he is searching for a figure he can pin responsibility on – and that is where Gantz comes in.

Despite unequivocal denials from Netanyahu’s confidantes, talks with Gantz are ongoing, with the goal of getting him to join the government when the right opportunity arrives.

Gantz seeks to obfuscate his intentions by issuing contradicting declarations. His previous slogan of “the country above all else” was accompanied by a speech he delivered during the swearing-in of the current government, as well as a social media post on that same weekend, in which he wrote, “We will be here to warn, and to assist where possible.”

Gantz went on to address those who voted for the Netanyahu camp, saying, “We will offer them a stately path, one that is matter-of-fact, and Zionist. We will offer them hope for unity, and not a civil war.”

These comments were further strengthened in media interviews that he gave, in which he said that the government can be supported from the outside. When asked if he would join the Netanyahu government, Gantz ruled out the possibility in an unequivocal manner, calling such a scenario science fiction.

A few days later, when Justice Minister Yariv Levin presented his proposed judicial revolution to the public, Gantz – despite his protestations – rushed to offer Netanyahu a cross-party committee to examine the burning issue on the agenda. He explained this proposal by saying that the issue of judicial reform was too substantial for Israel’s future to be left to political division, and that a broad agreement is necessary. In other words, what he was saying to Netanyahu was, “here is a responsible adult.”

GANTZ’S PLACATORY tone changed very quickly when he called for the public to “rock the country” by heading out to demonstrate, if broad agreements on judicial reform were not achieved. “We will take to the streets,” he warned. He also issued a veiled threat to Netanyahu, saying that if he continues along his current path, responsibility for the consequences would rest entirely with him. 

Gantz then turned to Likud voters and said, “You, the people of the liberal right, those who love the state, should be the first to head out and protest – not against Netanyahu, but against the dismantling of democracy.”

Benny Gantz's partners: Members of the Israeli Right

To fully analyze Gantz’s politics, it is important to look at his partners. Sa’ar, the former justice minister and chairman of the New Hope Party, who views Netanyahu as a bull views a red flag, is a Right winger whom Gantz had hoped would attract Likud voters to the National Unity Party.

Matan Kahana is a member of the religious Zionist camp, and was elected to serve on the Knesset’s Constitution, Law and Justice Committee (Law Committee) which will likely authorize Levin’s revolution. Kahana supports most of the reforms placed on the table – unlike his fellow faction members. 

The National Unity Party also includes former IDF chief of staff Lt.-Gen. (ret.) Gadi Eisenkot, who leads a more hawkish line regarding the Netanyahu government and stated that there is not even a one-in-a-million chance that he would join it.

Eisenkot opposes Levin’s judicial revolution and describes it as a change to the nature of the state’s governing system. He has called for a million Israelis to march against it on the streets, vowing to be among them.

When Gantz chose to arrive at the second demonstration against the judicial reform program in Tel Aviv held in January, it was Eisenkot who he met there. Gantz walked around the protesters holding a megaphone, as if to say, “I am the real leader that you are seeking.”

But do not be fooled. A short media report told of a meeting between a member of Gantz’s party, MK Chili Tropper, and Justice Minister Levin. This tells us that along with protesting, Gantz is also operating along a parallel axis as well. He is seeking to build a bridge over stormy waters in the hope that the moment will come when liberal Likud supporters will wake up and demand his entry into the government.

In the meantime, he is straddling two worlds. The idea of him joining the Netanyahu government is not science fiction. Gantz has done it in the past, when he enabled Netanyahu to serve as prime minister despite the indictments against him, and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that he will cross that bridge once again. If he does so, he will be forgetting his promises to his voters and will likely excuse this by saying, “Israel is above all else.”

Sharon Roffe-Ofir served as Knesset Member in the 24th Knesset. She has served as a deputy local council head at Kiryat Tivon, and has worked as a journalist and as a senior lecturer in academic institutions for 24 years. Read full bio here.

Monthly Brief, Israel reels from deadliest terror attack in over a decade

By Yaakov Lappin

Israelis are reeling from the deadliest terrorist attack experienced by the country since 2011. Armed with a handgun, an East Jerusalem resident opened fire indiscriminately on civilians he randomly encountered outside a synagogue in Jerusalem's Neve Yaakov neighborhood on Friday night (January 27).

Seven innocent civilians were murdered in cold blood, before the terrorist was shot dead by police. A day later, on January 28, a startlingly young terrorist, only 13-years-old, also from East Jerusalem, opened fire on a group of people in the City of David (Silwan) neighborhood, injuring a father and son. The son, an IDF Paratrooper officer on leave, returned fire, injuring the young assailant, despite having sustained severe injuries himself.

These developments occurred days after a large-scale gun battle that erupted in Jenin on Thursday (January 26), in which an Israeli security operation stopped a Palestinian Islamic Jihad cell from carrying out a planned, imminent terror assault on Israeli targets, according to the Israeli military.

Nine Palestinians were killed in a fierce exchange of fire with Israeli forces in broad daylight. Eight of the dead were gunmen, according to Israeli security sources, The daylight timing of the operation is an indication of its urgent necessity, said the IDF, as usually such operations are scheduled for nighttime.

These events have pushed the security situation to the top of the national agenda once again. There is no avoiding the fact that Palestinian society mainstreams and glorifies indiscriminate murder of Israeli civilians, as seen in the widespread celebrations that followed the Jerusalem attack.

When it comes to dealing with unorganized terrorism, the initial government response, as laid out in a series of cabinet actions, appears be a continuation of the previous security policy pursued by the Bennett – Lapid government.

The dilemma of how far to go in the use of force against terrorism is one that every Israeli cabinet faces, no matter which government is in charge. While an iron fist is necessary against terrorists and those who dispatch them, the defense establishment often advises the government to pursue a balancing act, and, where possible, to avoid taking steps that could further inflame the situation. This balancing act includes a recognition of the Israeli interest in avoiding a collapse of the Palestinian Authority and of avoiding harm to the fabric of life among Palestinians who are not involved in terrorism.

Meanwhile, Hamas maintains its usual double game, inciting terrorism through its official channels and social media presence and promoting atrocities against Israeli in Jerusalem and the West Bank, while maintaining the truce and advancing an economic improvement plan in Gaza. How long will Israel allow Hamas to play this double game? This is one of the questions that the new government will have to answer.

Intriguing developments in Iran

On Saturday night, reports began arriving from Iran regarding a suicide drone strike on a weapons production center in the Iranian city of Isfahan. There were contrasting accounts of who was responsible. According to the Saudi Al-Hadath newspaper, the United States and a second, undisclosed country – not Israel according to the Saudi account – hit a ballistic missile storage center in the strike. In contrast, The Wall Street Journal claimed Israel was behind the attack, and the picture remains far from clear.

The WSJ carries the more credible account, but it is also possible to believe that the U.S. supported or even assisted in the strike.

There has been an increase in attacks by the Iranian-led axis against American military posts in Syria. Suicide UAV and rocket attacks targeted American bases in Syria in January. In addition, given Iran's major role in becoming Russia's primary long-range weapon supplier in Moscow’s war on Ukraine, the U.S. has good reason to want to see Iran’s weapons production and storage centers disrupted.

Iran's choice to equip Russia with suicide UAVs, and, potentially, ballistic missiles in the near future, has internationalized and created linkages between combat zones in Europe and the Middle East. This development generates new risks, but also creates opportunities.

Iran is expanding its weapons supply network far beyond the borders of the Middle East, a disturbing development. Yet Israel could, as a result, find it easier to recruit new powerful partners in the campaign to interfere with and disrupt Iran’s destabilizing weapons production and smuggling network.

The long-term struggle over Israel’s character rages

Despite the security agenda's dominance in recent days, tens of thousands of Israelis demonstrated against the government’s plans for far-reaching judicial reform on Saturday evening in Tel Aviv and other cities. While the turnout was lower than rallies last week, the fact that tens of thousands attended (and observed a minute of silence in honor of the victims of terrorism) shows that the Israeli opposition movement is firm in its resolve to continue protest activities - despite the security escalation.

According to police estimates, some 40,000 people arrived in Tel Aviv for the demonstration there, down from 100,000 who attended in the previous week. Around 13,000 demonstrators participated in a parallel rally in Haifa. These protests reflect fact that the long-term domestic struggle over the nature and character of the Jewish state, as well as the bitter dispute over the balance of power between the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature, will remain in place for years to come. A fundamental question is whether the two major camps in Israeli society - the pro and anti-Netanyahu camps - will reach any kind of compromise on these deeply conflicting visions of Israel’s future.

Yaakov Lappin is an Israel-based military affairs correspondent and analyst. He provides insight and analysis for a number of media outlets, including Jane's Defense Weekly, a leading global military affairs magazine, and JNS.org, a news agency with wide distribution among Jewish communities in the U.S. Read full bio here.

Dangerous adversaries are targeting critical financial infrastructure

By Doron Tamir

One of the most neglected strategic cyber threats existing today is the ability of attackers to target financial systems, central banks, stock exchanges, and financial clients.

The Russia-Ukraine war has served as an urgent reminder of this developing capability. Russia has said that it will target the West’s economic assets in response to Western sanctions on Kremlin-connected individuals and oligarchs.

When it comes to the cyber realm, there are three ways that attackers can do this.

The first involves the advanced persistent threat model, which can be used to strike targets such as a country’s central bank or stock exchange.

As of yet, no stock market has collapsed, but such attacks can be exceedingly destructive in the future due to the role played by stock exchanges as central financial pillars.

According to media reports, Russia created a list of hostile threats, and prioritized them – this could form a list of future cyber strikes. Countries in Western Europe led by Germany, as well as in the East - Poland, the Baltic States, Estonia and Finland, are prominent on the list.

Russia could be planning a major cyberattack against banking systems in these countries.

To build up such offensive cyber capabilities, Russia is boosting its cyber strike systems, while also recruiting as many people as possible to assault Western banking and military digital networks -- a lesson it has learned from past failures.

These developments mean that banks, stock exchanges, and civilian finances must today be considered as strategic and essential infrastructures.

If a stock exchange in a country that relies on it fails, trade and the economy will greatly suffer, potentially resulting in billions of dollars in losses.

Cyber attackers can reach stock exchanges through ‘back door’ access – via large and small banking online systems.

Another way to achieve such damage is through social engineering attacks, which involve manipulating people into allowing harmful actors access to online systems.

Phishing is another way to achieve this, targeting not only those who work at financial organizations but also their customers. Everyone needs to learn how to identify false requests for information or attempts to get hold of account information.

Many have fallen for such traps already. In order to reduce risks, many banks today encourage customers to access their accounts through mobile applications. This makes the attacker's job more difficult, but it does not entirely defend against the threat.

Banks in Singapore, for example, offer a good model of how to build active defenses. Banks in the east Asian country were compelled by the government to create backups of their customers' accounts to prepare for the event of a cyber-attack.

That’s because in the event of such attacks, all banks, digital payments, and credit card use can be suspended, much like pulling the plug out of the socket. If backup systems are in place, financial losses during such an incident will be low, assuming the assault is identified immediately. 

Among other safety measures put in place by Singapore is limiting electronic transactions to 5,000 dollars without a two-factor authentication by clients.

Credit card transactions are limited to 5,000 dollars under the new safety measures and banks must seek client approval twice before responding to inquiries. The banks are also required to perform coordination activity with an anti-fraud center.

These steps should serve as a model for the world.

Hundreds of millions of dollars or even billions could be at stake. Cyber attacks can paralyze massive clearance processes that require for vast sums to be transferred by a specific time. Any disturbance of this system can inflict enormous damage.

An adequate cyber-attack detection system can freeze processes as soon as an alert is sounded, preventing ransom attacks as well as making them unprofitable for attackers.

Russia, for its part, has been sorely disappointed with the outcome of its cyber strikes on Ukraine, but it has no intention to abandon this project. Russia is determined to exact revenge and achieve a “victory image.” In that context, it wishes to show the West, particularly Germany, that a price will be paid for its “treachery” against Russia.

Russia serves as a source of inspiration for Israel's adversaries and Israel has already experienced similar attempts to strike its financial system. Hackers from Malaysia launched cyber assaults in recent months targeting Israeli financial systems, though these were distributed denial of service type attacks that caused minor disruption.

They did, however, demonstrate how a few hundred hackers can band together and launch coordinated attacks against a single target. Israel’s defensive systems were good in this case to repel the incident. Nevertheless, the attack serves as a cautionary tale.

Every time there is an escalation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or any circumstance in which antagonism toward Israel spreads across parts of the Islamic world, cyber-attacks are launched against various Israeli civilian, government and military networks. 

Defacement-type incidents do not pose a severe risk. However, the infiltration of CCTV cameras in Jerusalem by Iranian hackers and the subsequent release of footage from a deadly November bus station bombing in the city was troubling and should have been prevented.

Israel must respond by beefing up defenses on all of its networks, including its central banking system, with the effort coordinated by its National Cyber Directorate.

These days, cyber defenders can also enjoy the added benefits of Artificial Intelligence, which is gradually taking increasing control over defenses of digital communications and network infrastructure. AI systems can learn on their own, issue recommendations, and prevent attacks, while investigating all aspects of hostile activity.

Israel became a major cyber power in part thanks to the Israeli government's investments in this field over the years.  The time has now come for the Israeli government to make similar investments in AI development and to link this field to cyber defenses – the sooner the better. 

Brigadier General Doron Tamir General Doron Tamir had a distinguished military career spanning over 2 decades in the Intelligence Corps and Special forces - as the Chief Intelligence Officer in the Israeli military, where he commanded numerous military units in all aspects of the intelligence field, from signal, visual, and human intelligence, through technology and cyber, to combat and special operations. Read full bio here.

Will Temple Mount Tensions Spark Another Arab-Israeli Crisis?

By Eitan Dangot

Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the Temple Mount has served as a narrative that Palestinians and extremists from the Arab-Israeli community have used to institutionalize the culture of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. This is a culture that arouses the masses, is emotional, and can mobilize the Arab-Israeli street and the Palestinians, as well as the Arab street in other Sunni countries.

Events surrounding the Temple Mount can pour fuel on the fire of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and ignite an inferno, literally, within hours.

On the Israeli-Jewish side, the issue also serves as a detonator for extremist radical elements, who preach incessantly for the establishment of a Jewish foothold on the Temple Mount and wish to fly a red flag in front of the bull. Activities of this nature can upend Israeli government policies and the State of Israel’s ability to maintain law and order in Jerusalem.

In Benjamin Netanyahu’s new cabinet, several parties have full-fledged right-wing lawmakers coming to power for the first time. The Temple Mount is part of the political hardcore environment that they grew up in.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir’s ascension to the Temple Mount on January 3 has far-reaching implications as it threatens the delicate security balance in Jerusalem, in the territories controlled by the Palestinian Authority, and in Gaza. His decision to ascend the Temple Mount in one of his first acts as a minister was a deliberate provocation against Arab citizens of the State of Israel, Palestinians, and the Arab states of the region. It is clear that from now on, every move and every statement made by Ben Gvir and some of his colleagues will come under scrutiny and in the near future will trigger a response, perhaps in words but also possibly in actions.

Before ascending to the Temple Mount, Ben Gvir should have adopted the maxim, “think first, act later.” Still, it is important to clarify that the status quo on the Temple Mount has not changed, and there is no plan to change it.

Netanyahu had the option—one that he has adopted in the past—to instruct his ministers to refrain from visiting the Temple Mount and allow only rank-and-file ministers of the Knesset to do so. So far, he has yet to implement such a policy this time around.

At the same time, Hamas has good reasons to avoid going to war over this issue. The current situation (where Gaza is quiet, but the West Bank is witnessing an increase in terrorist attacks and clashes between Palestinians and Israeli forces), together with the declining status of the Palestinian Authority, serves Hamas’s strategy well. This has been the case since May 2021 when Hamas initiated a conflict with Israel to portray itself as the protector of Al Aqsa.

Hamas is currently hard at work rehabilitating its military force in Gaza, while at the same time exploiting opportunities to improve the strip’s economy and alleviate some of the pressure on it.

Israel has granted some 20,000 work visas for Gazans, who bring much-needed cash into the Gazan economy. Meanwhile, Hamas is strengthening its collaboration with Hezbollah, Iran, and regional terror elements to optimize its position on the day the ceasefire is called off.

In the near future, the Islamic holiday of Ramadan, which begins on March 26, could have game-changing potential in the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel. And the Temple Mount’s role could be critical here.

The month preceding Ramadan is historically associated with an increase in hatred and religious agitation. This is when it will be easiest to spark an explosion among Palestinians and Arab Israelis on the streets of East Jerusalem and in Israel. Israel’s strategy, particularly that of this new government, must be aimed at preventing this scenario wherever possible. 

Major-General Eitan Dangot concluded his extensive career as the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (C.O.G.A.T.) in 2014. Prior to that post he served as the Military Secretary to three Ministers of Defense; Shaul Mofaz, Amir Peretz and Ehud Barak. Read full bio here.

The government’s reforms risk politicizing the Israel Police

By Shaul Gordon

Over recent weeks we have witnessed bitter arguments in the Israeli media and in public discourse over reforms demanded by the new public security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has renamed his position to national security minister.

Before assessing the value and possible ramifications of these reforms – among them are the powers to govern the Israel Police and outline its general principles of action – we should first examine the status quo.

According to Clause 8A of the Police Ordinance, 1971, the commissioner of police is appointed by the government following the recommendation of the public security minister.

According to Clause 9 of the ordinance, which can be traced back to the British Mandate period, the role of the commissioner is to “supervise the Israel Police, its management orders, activation and all of the expenses tied to it, and the supplies at its disposal.”

In both practice and theory, the minister recommends to the government his or her preferred candidate for commissioner and the government accepts the recommendation. There is no precedent for the recommendation being rejected.

The minister also authorizes all of the appointments of senior police officers – officers from the rank of deputy commander and up – after examining their professional and ethical suitability to their proposed positions. The minister can reject the appointment of a specific officer but cannot decide to appoint an officer who has not been recommended by the police chief.

On all matters pertaining to ongoing police activities, up until now, no public security minister has ever intervened in the commissioner’s work by issuing orders on how and where to deploy and operate the various police units. The minister’s involvement has usually been limited to the general guidance of the police.

Thus, for example, the minister can instruct the commissioner to prepare for certain events but cannot instruct him on how to deploy forces, in which locations or how many offices to deploy.

The role of the minister and the ministry is to represent the police to the government and to secure suitable budgets and personnel. The internal distribution of the police budget is presented to the minister but it is not subject to his approval.

How will Ben-Gvir change Israel's police?

Ben-Gvir’s coalition agreement with the Likud involves far-reaching changes to the law. These changes will enable him to determine policies that will govern the police and which will in effect subordinate the police to the minister, including the ability to alter the police’s rules of engagement.

In addition, the Border Police in Judea and Samaria, today, subordinate to the IDF’s Central Command but will be subordinate to Ben-Gvir.

To justify these steps, the new minister has sought to give the police equal standing to that of the IDF. Ben-Gvir has claimed that just as the IDF is subordinate to the defense minister and his policies, so too should the police be subordinate to the national security minister and his policies.

At face value, this argument is appealing since the minister has been voted in by the public in democratic elections to promote certain agendas. If the minister cannot determine the policies and priorities that guide the police and only the commissioner can decide in these areas, then how can the minister fulfill his obligations to the public?

YET THESE demands not only create significant legal and constitutional difficulties, they could also lead directly to the politicization of the police, to severe harm to human rights and potentially, to violent incidents that could claim lives, as well as harm the international status of Israel.

The claim that the police’s stance needs to be equal to the IDF is baseless since the legal basis governing the military – Clause 2 (A) of the Basic Law: The Military states that “the military is subject to the authority of the government,” and not to the defense minister.

According to Clause 3(B) of the aforementioned Basic Law, “the chief of the general staff is subject to the authority of the government and subordinate to the defense minister.” – means that the military cannot be ordered by the defense minister on his own and without a government decision, to go to war. As such, there is no basis for the claim that the military is subordinate to the defense minister and no basis for the claim that the police should be subordinate to the public security minister.

Beyond legal arguments, the comparison of the police to the military is wrong for reasons of substance, too. Unlike the IDF, the police is designed to serve and protect the Israeli public from domestic threats. The police must act on the basis of equality without the victim of the crime or the offender’s religion, race or gender playing any part in its actions.

Therefore, the decision to place the minister – not just Ben-Gvir, but any minister – as being in charge of police policies in dealing with offenses or rioting is an opening for the politicization of the police and could lead to the alarming scenario of over or under-policing of one sector or another depending on its identity.

Imagine a situation in which a minority seeks to protest against the prime minister or a public body and that the decision on whether to allow the protest is taken by a political element. Could the minister truly ignore his political beliefs and the political affiliation of the protesters? Those pushing the reforms seek to calm critics by saying that the minister will have no ability to intervene in investigations and that the police will remain sovereign in its ability to investigate any individual on suspicion of any offense.

While this position is important and necessary, it is not sufficient. The minister can, under the reforms, set budgets for investigating units whose activities he does not view in a favorable light.

In addition, the minister will, under the reforms, be able to dictate how police respond to disturbances, as well as set policies in classic policing missions among the various sectors of Israeli society, including minorities. This represents a slippery slope that could easily lead to drastic future changes.

Similarly, Ben-Gvir’s demand to command Border Police forces in Judea and Samaria is extremely problematic. From the perspective of international law, Judea and Samaria are classed as zones under belligerent control, meaning that a military commander – in this case the head of the IDF’s Central Command – is sovereign there. Subordinating them to the minister is not only contrary to international law and could be interpreted as an act of annexation but could create chaos on the ground by creating multiple chains of command in the same area.

These steps appear, therefore, to form a real revolution and can lead to disturbing consequences on Israel’s standing, image and values, which have been shaped by generations.

Brigadier General Shaul Gordon has extensive experience serving in a legal capacity within the Israel National Police (INP) and the Israel Defense Forces, including holding the position of Senior Legal Advisor to the INP from 2006-2016. Read full bio here.

Survivors’ Courage: Educate and Empower

By Michael B. Snyder

It has not been difficult for the majority of American Jews to “pass.” That is, other than physical stereotypes, Jews who did not identify by wearing religious items (e.g., head coverings), especially light-skinned Ashkenazim, physically could pass for white Americans and thus may have escaped being the target of antisemitism; this could and cannot however reasonably disavow knowledge of the problem. 

Jewish-American Pulitzer Prize winner Bernard Malamud whose fiction work included survivor trauma “before the Holocaust was integrated into the American historical or cultural imaginary,” was acting as a historian and a prescience when he said, “If you ever forget you're a Jew, a Gentile will remind you.” American Jews have always been sufficiently reminded but an effective response is elusive perhaps because the comparison is most often to the lack of pre-Holocaust remedies. The appropriate response to American antisemitism today however should be based upon following heroic survivors’ and Israeli historians’ principles to a Judeo-centric model.

By way of background, Hitler in Mein Kampf credited Jews with a backhanded compliment worth noting: “[The Jews] apparently great sense of solidarity is based on the very primitive herd instinct that … leads to mutual support … as long as a common danger makes this seem useful or inevitable.” Yet survivors arriving in pre-state Palestine or the newly created Israel were met with the feeling, if not the direct accusation, that they had acted, as the biblical analogy goes, like “sheep to slaughter,” by having lined up passively for deportation, selection, and death, without sufficient resistance.  Many Jews preparing for and fighting existential wars on the new land finally recognized their bravery and heroism when fighting side by side with these heroes who had worked their way through the destruction still blamed on Jews and around British blockades knowing they faced immediate savage combat. 

Even Israeli studies of the Holocaust beginning at the end of WWII had these victims’ experiences as a side-narrative in a Nazi-centric historiography until the topic evolved to a systemized historical field with the norm becoming a focus on reconstructing the “internal life” of Jews under the Nazis. Thus, in retrospect, it is not surprising that historians in the early study of the Holocaust analyzed the end result without a full examination of the Jewish perspective of, for example, considering the creation of a partisan resistance group, as did those nationalists who came together as countrymen. Historians’ full examination revealed the virtual impossibility of such a large-scale Jewish partisan movement, revealing instead that Jews consciously deliberated the potential impact on family and community who would suffer from group retribution.

These Jews either in hiding or ghettos also were operating without benefit of reliable information regarding concentration and subsequently death camps, as opposed to the premature conjecture of historians concluding that both Germans and European Jews were aware of what was the true definition of “deportation.” Predating the Yad Vashem memorial’s opening in 1953, Israeli historians began acquiring personal testimonies of survivors thereby beginning to bring the Jews’ experience to full light, a revolutionary academic evolution that eventually led to global initiatives including but certainly not limited to Stephen Spielberg leading a gathering of 54,000 personal testimonies. 

Appropriately researching and collecting data constructing the appropriate narrative to more accurately define today’s continued and mainstream American antisemitism must rely on these past mistakes and subsequent recalibration. Despite that antisemitic tropes claiming that Jews control the government, banks, Hollywood – in fact the entire world and outer space – there is not yet a sufficient response to what is being called an “outbreak” by traditional media. To the contrary, it is well-documented that antisemitism has been the norm throughout history, including in the quiet parts of America, and the outlier here is the attempt to frame today’s recognition as unique or somewhat of an unsuspected rally against a cultural norm.  

To borrow a phrase from those who lived under the Nazi regime, American Jews may be operating under the “if this is as bad as it gets, we will be fine” and/or “we are loyal citizens and this is only temporary” illusion. This is not to assign blame to those under attack, but a necessary question as to whether those are reasonable responses by those living in a country where (outside of Israel) the adage is, “Jews have never been as accepted or successful.”  Unfortunately, that phrase is exactly how the unsuspecting Jews in Nazi Germany appropriately described themselves pre-1933 and the advent of Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws began the rape of Jews’ humanity.

We must return to the lessons of the Holocaust without the unworthy comparison of the German government and the potential for an American parallel.  Instead, the heroic movement of survivors to educate the world about the personal impact of antisemitism and its generational trauma must be brought to the forefront if the phrase “never again” is to be considered something to work towards rather than a hopeful bumper sticker.  It is time to approach antisemitism from the Jews’ point of view, utilizing testimonies describing the impact on individuals from today’s burgeoning attacks.  Like survivors’ testimonies, this will broadcast the personal trauma with factual accounts and, if nothing else, create community among Jews against the common enemy of antisemitism.  It reverses the apparent trend of generations in America being unable or unwilling to pass down personal experiences with antisemitism, including being refused employment at professional firms and corporations, subjected to quotas both as professors and students, systematically barred from country clubs, banned from buying homes in “white” neighborhoods (both officially by deed restrictions and unofficially through sellers rebuffing Jews).  Historical data shows clearly that while American antisemitism took a break during WWII (when it was un-American to side with the enemy Nazis by disparaging Jews), antisemitism until today is as much a part of Jewish-American history as Nobel prizes and Pulitzers. 

Just as survivors overcame well-documented trauma and tragedy, unable to tell their stories even to their closest family members, their bravery in coming forward is the ideal model that not only ties Jews to their past but could possibly accomplish the original goal of the survivors’ testimonies: educate to empower. It is time to, as the testimony of each survivor did, change the narrative from antisemitism as an attack against Jews as a group to each instance being a crime against a person, e.g., a child in middle school, a senior citizen, or a religious person going to pray. When a target is an innocent person with a voice and face instead of a maligned, disdained faceless entity, those who might otherwise turn away may find compassion and Jews may begin to take down established walls within communities.  At the very least, it will place the problem squarely in front of all Jews in an impactful way thus making it more difficult to turn aside from something which the viewer may believe is not that troubling, or not happening in his or her neighborhood.

Relying upon teachings from the past has sustained Jews since Biblical times, and learning from survivors recognizes and utilizes that tradition. Unleashing Judaism’s most effective weapon – the continued yearning of return to the collective path -- can be accomplished by utilizing a successful model that once again could bring redemption from a villainous enemy.

Michael B. Snyder is a publishing contributor at The MirYam Institute, he is an attorney with over 35 years of experience in the areas of children’s rights, human rights and Non-Government Organizations in the United States, Israel and Africa. Read full bio here.

Welcome to the new Netanyahu era

By Danielle Roth-Avneri

After five tumultuous election cycles held in the space of three-and-a-half years, and a government that lasted not much more than a year, the sixth Netanyahu government has reached the runaway and is ready to take off and deliver political stability for the State of Israel.

Political stability will be this government’s first goal since that is precisely what has been lacking in Israel. As in any country, instability causes citizens to suffer, so wherever one may be on the political map, political stability will be a positive development.

The current mood among sections of the Israeli public is reminiscent of the 1970s, when, in 1977, Menachem Begin and his Likud party were elected for the first time, triggering hysteria.

Then, as now, some Israelis are overjoyed that they got the government they voted for. The pro-Netanyahu camp is also happy that a prime minister from the largest political party formed the government, unlike the former setup, which was based on a government led by a prime minister (Naftali Bennett) at the head of a party with just six Knesset seats.   

Fueled by the largely left-wing Israeli media, the anti-Netanyahu camp is frightened to the point that some of its members believe that the LGBT community is facing Iranian-style repression.

This fear is completely baseless. There are always extremist views in any government, right or left, but these are generally fringe voices. National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, for example, was a volatile hilltop youth activist who came from the extreme fringes of the political map in the past. Yet today, Israelis elected him to restore their sense of personal security. While many issues compete for the Israeli voter’s attention, personal security is a fundamental one that wins elections and places people in positions of power in this country.

Now, the State of Israel has a full-on right-wing government, reflecting the majority of the voters’ will. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, is still distributing roles – and already, he has unhappy campers in his party to deal with.

Likud Knesset Members Eli Cohen and Yisrael Katz will alternate as foreign ministers. This isn't the most sensible setup; will international leaders have to go online to find out who Israel’s foreign minister is on any given day?

Netanyahu also named close confidante Ron Dermer as minister for strategic affairs. This is truly an unusual move. Dermer was not elected, yet now is in a cabinet position. Only time will reveal whether the appointment will pay off and whether it will set a precedent for future professional appointments.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu implemented a brilliant maneuver by appointing the only gay Likud Knesset Member, Amir Ohana, as Knesset Speaker.

This position is one of the seven official symbols of state sovereignty. While political observers were waiting to see whether Netanyahu would appoint the moderate Likud figure of Ofir Akunis, or the firebrand politician Dudi Amsalem as Speaker, Netanyahu surprised everyone and selected Ohana, thereby contradicting the claims that his new government will be homophobic.

Several MKs have been designated ministers without portfolios, which is a shame since the government should be prioritizing its civilians over the needs of politicians.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu’s inauguration ceremony on December 29 was both stormy and jubilant, depending on where one sat in the Knesset.

Unlike prior governments, which relied on strained, artificial political arrangements and the narrowest of majorities, Netanyahu has a comfortable majority this time and has more room to maneuver. Even if he is pressed by the more extreme elements in his government, he has the margin to deal with that pressure.

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri who was convicted of criminal tax misconduct will serve as both health and interior minister in this government, two important positions, begging the question of just how far Netanyahu is prepared to go to placate his coalition partners.

Ultimately, the real showdown now is between Netanyahu and the Israeli media.

In each of the five election rounds so far, pro- and anti-Netanyahu camps battled it out, and this time, the Netanyahu camp triumphed.

Netanyahu was always certain that he would win. He went out into the “wilderness” of the opposition, patiently bided his time, and returned.

This government is facing an avalanche of criticism before it has even got to work. But it is important to keep in mind that it also had a lot of public support in Israel.

The big question now is how will it perform. Will it fail as its detractors predict? Or will it follow in the footsteps of Begin, who went on to sign a peace treaty with Egypt and disproved the fears that dominated sections of the country in the 1970s?

Danielle Roth-Avneri is a political commentator & panelist on Morning World and various current affairs news programs on television. She is a former Knesset reporter, news editor and columnist for the newspaper Israel Hayom. Read full bio here.

Israel's new government braces for Palestinian escalation

By David Hacham

With Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu forming his new government, the Palestinian Authority has little to no expectation that the diplomatic process with Israel will be resumed in the near future. Since Netanyahu’s victory in the November 1 election, Palestinian rhetoric toward Israel has been radical and antagonistic.

From the Palestinian perspective, the new Netanyahu government with its overtly right-wing coalition partners places a breakthrough with Israel in the realm of the impossible. In late December, the Fatah Revolutionary Council led by Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas described the incoming government as “a gang of murderers who will prove beyond question that Israel is an apartheid state.”

The council added that the government’s planned agenda for the future of the West Bank will trigger a major explosion if the international community does not intervene “and prevent Israel from realizing its bloody ambitions.” The council also endorsed Palestinian resistance measures, noting that these should be conducted in accordance with international law.

Abbas addressed the council meeting in Ramallah and offered his pessimistic outlook. Radical figures have risen to power in Israel, he said, obligating Palestinians to oppose the fascist new government.

Of the many, potentially unacceptable decisions, from the Palestinian perspective, that are likely to be made by Israel, legalizing outposts in the West Bank and paving new byroads for settlers are some of the most immediate concerns. The PA states such moves will make a future Palestinian independent state essentially unattainable.

Netanyahu will act responsibly, but the Palestinian arena is volatile

Netanyahu is clearly aware of these worries, which exist not only on the Palestinian side but also among pragmatic Sunni Arab states, including the Gulf States that are now in open partnership with Israel under the Abraham Accords.

Jordan, Egypt, the Gulf States, the United States administration, and European Union members have all recently declared their unwavering support for the goal of an independent Palestinian state.

As a result of these pressures, Netanyahu will likely act as a responsible adult and support a balanced, pragmatic approach toward the Palestinians while reigning in his government’s more radical elements. In addition, Netanyahu’s stated goal of broadening the normalization circle to include Saudi Arabia will depend on the adoption of such a pragmatic approach.

In the meantime, the Palestinian arena is volatile, with escalating security incidents reaching near-boiling points. The determination of terrorist organizations and individuals operating outside of organized frameworks to conduct attacks against Israeli targets is currently sky-high, as is planning for the execution of such attacks.

The significant spike in tensions and security incidents in the West Bank, the continued protests by Palestinian security prisoners in Israeli jails, particularly around the issue of administrative detention, combined with growing fears about the Israeli government’s capacity to manage radical ideological elements within its ranks could set the stage for a third intifada.

EARLY SIGNS of such a scenario are already visible. Frequent violent clashes occur regularly between the IDF and Palestinian terrorists, as well as between Israeli civilians living in the West Bank and Palestinian civilians.

Attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians by Palestinian gunmen who have a clear organizational affiliation, as well as those with no such affiliation, have risen starkly this past year. Clashes are also taking place in known flashpoints between the IDF and Palestinian rioters, as well as between Israeli and Palestinian civilians.

Meanwhile, there have been numerous incidents of firebombings, rock throwing, and the planting of explosives by terrorists along West Bank roads and at other flashpoints in the territory. According to figures from various sources, some 170 Palestinians have been killed in clashes with the IDF since the start of the year, with most of them, although not all, involving armed combatants and terrorists.

As a result, the PA leadership is attempting to take advantage of the large number of Palestinian casualties in order to destroy Israel’s credibility, undermine its worldwide reputation and rally the international community against the incoming Netanyahu government.

Abbas voiced this escalatory and adversarial strategy in his comments to the Fatah Revolutionary Council when he vowed that the PA would expand political and popular protests, though he did not go into details regarding what those protests would look like.

Abbas has long-held a dual approach to the issue of Palestinian violence, condemning armed terror attacks on Israelis in the past but also supporting all recent terrorists, irrespective of whether they opened fire, stabbed or threw explosives at Israelis.

It is worth noting that in a recent media interview, Abbas stated that he had previously opposed armed conflict with Israel but warned that his opinion could change in light of Israel’s behavior. Such comments reflect the stress and frustration that Abbas and the PA are currently experiencing. Nevertheless, security coordination between Israel and the PA is continuing at this stage.

Under these circumstances, Palestinians continue to stand still, failing to move toward any of their political and strategic objectives. Meanwhile, against the backdrop of increased tensions and violence in the West Bank, the relative calm in Gaza stands in stark contrast.

From its vantage point in Gaza, Hamas will keep a close eye on events at sensitive ignition points, particularly the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, and on the escalating situation in the West Bank, searching for new ways to boost its foothold there.

Hamas is exploiting the current escalation, planning its next moves and marketing itself as the future leadership of the entire Palestinian people in place of the PA and Fatah.

In light of this, PA security forces have begun a campaign of arrests of Hamas operatives and it is fair to assume that Israeli intelligence is enabling some of these arrests.

Under these conditions, Israel must project the message that the political process has not been removed from the table, as part of an effort to prevent escalatory patterns that could quickly spin out of control.

David Hacham served for 30 years in IDF intelligence, is a former Commander of Coordination of Govt. Activities in the Territories (COGAT) and was advisor for Arab Affairs to seven Israeli Ministers of Defense. Read full bio here.