Summary
A minority of violent actors is responsible for serious offenses that harm both security and international standing. These actions are often magnified by external narratives, shaping global discourse and policy pressure. Existing legal frameworks are described as insufficient to להתמודד such threats effectively. Expanded use of administrative and enforcement tools is proposed as a necessary step to mitigate risks and preserve stability.
Key Takeaways
- A small but highly organized group engages in violent acts that are framed as terrorism and cause disproportionate political and security damage.
- Broad narratives and external actors amplify these incidents, often generalizing them to an entire population and influencing international perception.
- Stronger enforcement, including administrative measures alongside criminal law, is argued to be necessary to effectively counter these threats and protect national interests.
The campaign by the enemies of the state, some external and some internal, to cast aspersions on the entire Zionist enterprise in Judea and Samaria has achieved considerable success. The campaign is not only against the existence of the “settlements,” but is directed at every individual resident – aka “settler” (full disclosure: the author of this document is also a “settler”). Moreover, in truth, at its core, the campaign is not limited to the Zionist enterprise in Judea and Samaria, but seeks to undermine the very legitimacy of the existence of the Jewish state.
According to even the most conservative estimates, 500,000 Israelis live in Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria. The overwhelming majority of them are law-abiding individuals. Nevertheless, a blood libel has exploded worldwide, spreading not only among our adversaries but also causing serious repercussions among our closest allies in the United States. The commonly used term, from antisemites at the UN, on the one hand, to our friends, including U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance, on the other, is “settler violence.”
With a clear understanding of the campaign’s true objectives, and recognizing that at least 99.99% of the “settlers” are law-abiding citizens, we must ask how it has come to pass that a central topic of discussion between the U.S. Vice President and the Israeli Prime Minister, particularly during wartime, is the alleged “settler violence.”
There are many ways to answer this question. On one hand, some label anyone who raises the issue as antisemitic. On the other, there are those who argue that the very existence of the Jewish state is a sin, and therefore all Jews are inherently violent.
In this article, I propose a different response. The response is anchored on a number of fundamental elements. First, the unassailable premise that the Jewish people have an inherent right to a state of their own. Second, that the Jewish state cannot exist anywhere other than in the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel. Third, that the Land of Israel is not confined to the armistice lines drawn following the War of Independence, commonly known as the “Green Line.” Fourth, that the territories of Judea and Samaria are an integral part of the Land of Israel, and Jews have a full right to live and settle there. Any claim that such settlement is illegal must be categorically rejected. On the contrary, the State of Israel has the strongest legal claim to Judea and Samaria.
At the same time, we must acknowledge that, like any society, there exists a very small minority of Jews who engage in violence. While most Jews in Judea and Samaria live in established communities, some reside in recognized communities undergoing formalization, and a very small number live in unauthorized outposts. Not only are these outposts unauthorized, but they are often located in areas that interfere with security forces and may even pose security risks.
There is currently extensive discussion regarding the numerous “farms” established in Judea and Samaria in recent years. These farms, most of which were established on state land in coordination with security authorities, make a substantial contribution to regional security and to safeguarding the area from hostile encroachment. Alongside them, however, there is a small number of outposts that not only fail to contribute to security but actively cause harm.
These individuals, some of them youths who have not found suitable educational frameworks, engage in violence. They attack Arabs living in the area, steal property and livestock, and burn vehicles and even homes with occupants inside. Some of these individuals reside permanently in Judea and Samaria and may be entitled to the title “settler,” while others come from cities and communities within the “Green Line.”
Their acts of violence are directed not only at Arabs but also at Jews, security personnel, IDF soldiers, and police forces. The damage they cause is not limited to Arab property, but also extends to IDF equipment, which is essential to the security infrastructure of lawful communities.
These acts of violence by this small minority have a clear definition: terrorism.
The broader public in Israel, including the overwhelming majority of “settlers,” condemns and rejects these acts of terrorism. They do not characterize or represent the State of Israel, its citizens, the “settlers,” or the vast settlement enterprise, which continues to grow and, hopefully, will reach one million “settlers” as soon as possible.
However, if the settlement enterprise is indeed important to us, we must not bury our heads in the sand regarding the phenomenon of terrorism. We must acknowledge that there is a problem and address it effectively, applying the simple principle that a terrorist who commits acts of terror belongs in prison, even if, regrettably, that terrorist is Jewish.
The path forward is not simple. These terrorists are not only violent but also highly sophisticated. In a short period, they have learned what Arab terrorists failed to master over more than sixty years. Their operations are characterized by a level of compartmentalization comparable to that of intelligence agencies such as Aman (IDF Military Intelligence) and the Shin Bet. Penetrating their networks is extremely difficult. They are careful not to leave evidence and often carry out attacks in Areas A and B, knowing that Israeli police will not be able to enter these areas to conduct investigations. Even when apprehended, they are able to manipulate a legal system that, for years, has largely forgotten how to deal with terrorism, whether from Arabs or, in the much rarer case, from Jews.
The problem is that, due to their sophistication, these Jewish terrorists inflict enormous damage, not only on the settlement enterprise but on the State of Israel as a whole.
The Palestinian Authority is also a significant player in this dynamic. Its officials exploit every opportunity to spread allegations against Israel in general and against “settlers” and “settlements [which they claim are illegal].” The Palestinian Authority prevents Israeli law enforcement from reaching incident sites and deliberately disrupts investigations. It has a vested interest in loudly decrying “settler violence” in every forum, while simultaneously obstructing investigations and then complaining about under-enforcement and inaction by the Israeli government.
The UN organization OCHA is another highly problematic and influential actor. OCHA collects every complaint, whether accurate or not, from Palestinians and their supporters against Jews and categorizes them as “settler violence.” According to OCHA, paving a road with proper authorization constitutes “settler violence.” Jewish visits to the Temple Mount are also classified as “settler violence.” In more extreme cases, when an Arab terrorist attacks a Jew and the Jew dares to defend himself, this too is labeled “settler violence.” In practice, OCHA is one of the main bodies responsible for legitimizing false claims and disseminating them globally. It is the same OCHA that endorsed Hamas’s false casualty figures in Gaza and spread them worldwide. The scope of “settler violence” reported by OCHA bears no relation to reality.
Critics claim that these acts of terrorism by a small minority are a result of the tenure of Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir. This is false. Unfortunately, such acts existed long before these ministers were elected to the Knesset, and certainly before they assumed their current positions. These claims are intended solely to defame and discredit them as part of broader political attacks.
Nevertheless, the truth must be acknowledged. Despite long-standing awareness among security authorities and successive Israeli governments of this fringe phenomenon of Jewish terrorism, an adequate response has yet to be found.
During my two decades of service in the military prosecution, most of it in roles related to counterterrorism, I learned two troubling lessons.
First, the legal system’s approach to terrorism, whether Arab or Jewish, has failed. The law does not deter terrorists. The Israeli legal system, designed to address “ordinary crime,” is either unable or unwilling to make the necessary adjustments to deal effectively with terrorism.
Second, I learned that the judicious use of administrative tools, some of which were originally intended to assist in counterterrorism, can be highly effective. One could easily demonstrate, for example, how the use of administrative detention in Judea and Samaria over the past thirty years has significantly contributed to reducing Arab terrorism.
The use of administrative tools is inherently complex, as they deviate from the preferred route of criminal law. Nevertheless, most people, particularly those dealing with Arab terrorism, acknowledge that such measures are, at the very least, a necessary evil.
In this context, the near-total failure of criminal enforcement compels us, as a law-abiding state committed to preserving life, to make greater use of administrative measures.
Administrative detention is the most severe of these tools. It allows for the deprivation of liberty without fully disclosing the reasons or evidence. Currently, approximately 4,000 Arab terrorists are held in administrative detention. The question arises: what distinguishes an Arab terrorist planning to murder Jews from a Jewish terrorist planning to murder Arabs?
The sweeping rejection by Defense Minister Katz of the use of administrative detention against Jews is, in my view, highly problematic. This restriction unnecessarily limits one of the most important tools not only for combating terrorism but also for saving lives. The use of administrative detention against Jewish terrorists, in appropriate cases and based on sufficient evidence, would not only save lives but also help counter baseless accusations against the “settler” population.
Such use would not harm the settlement enterprise, since these Jewish terrorists do not represent it, but rather damage it. On the contrary, employing administrative detention against them would strengthen the settlement enterprise and enable its continued growth.
In addition to administrative detention, other tools are available. Under appropriate circumstances and based on sufficient evidence, the Central Command may issue restriction orders confining individuals to specific areas. In relevant cases, and particularly for those who do not reside permanently in Judea and Samaria, the Central Command may also issue orders barring entry into the region altogether. According to reports, approximately 40 individuals are currently subject to such restrictions.
As a state committed to life and as a law-abiding society, we must not allow this group of terrorists, even if they are Jewish, to undermine the entire settlement enterprise. We must not allow them to endanger national security or provide ammunition to our enemies. Most importantly, we must not allow them to harm the moral fabric of the nation. They do not represent us. They are not pioneers leading the way. They are violent extremists who harm Arabs indiscriminately. This is not our path.
The current situation cannot continue. Over time, this small group of Jewish terrorists is causing increasing harm both to the settlement enterprise and to the State of Israel as a whole. The Israeli government must do far more to strengthen criminal enforcement against these individuals and to mitigate the threat they pose through the judicious use of administrative measures.
This includes preventing the Palestinian Authority from obstructing investigations and then claiming a lack of enforcement. Whenever an incident of Jewish terrorism occurs, the IDF and Israeli police must enter any location necessary to enforce the law, conduct investigations, and collect evidence.
It is not easy to acknowledge the existence of a phenomenon that can be termed “Jewish terrorism.” However, if we fail to recognize it promptly and take decisive action to address it, we will have no grounds for complaint when even our closest allies speak to us harshly about the issue and our inaction.
