A Security Environment

Israel may be developing a new approach to counterterrorism in Judea and Samaria. It is an approach that goes beyond the familiar practice of demolishing the homes of terrorists or conducting targeted raids against terrorist cells. Instead, it introduces a potentially more consequential proposition: When terrorists operate from a particular neighborhood, the IDF may evacuate the area, establish military control and prevent its use as an operational base for an extended period. The message is straightforward: Israel will not allow terrorist organizations to turn civilian neighborhoods into protected operating grounds.

The events in Hebron following the murder of two Israeli soldiers last week illustrate the possibility. The IDF evacuated thousands of Palestinian residents from neighborhoods associated with the attackers and conducted extensive searches. Weapons and explosives were reportedly discovered, and an underground shaft was found near one of the gunmen’s homes. These discoveries reinforce the reality that terrorist infrastructure was deeply embedded within civilian communities. According to press reports, IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir recommended that residents be allowed to return, believing that the immediate military objectives had been achieved. Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly rejected that recommendation, while Defence Minister Israel Katz insisted that residents would not return until Hamas infrastructure had been dismantled. The disagreement raises an important question: should Israel be satisfied with eliminating the immediate threat, or should it ensure that the conditions that allowed the threat to develop cannot simply re-emerge?

There is a compelling strategic argument for the latter. Traditional counterterrorism is largely reactive. In terrorist attacks, intelligence identifies the perpetrators, the IDF arrests or eliminates them, and sometimes their homes are demolished. The surrounding community returns to its normal routine. The terrorist organization, however, may retain its infrastructure, recruitment networks, weapons stores and freedom of movement. A territorial approach changes that equation. Rather than repeatedly entering a neighborhood to dismantle terrorist infrastructure, the IDF establishes control over the area and denies terrorists the ability to use it as an operational base. This is not necessarily about punishing a population. It is about ensuring that the same threat does not have an opportunity to regenerate.

This is not an entirely theoretical proposition. In the northern West Bank refugee camps of Jenin, Tulkarm and Nur Shams, Israel has already undertaken operations that resulted in mass displacement and a continuing military presence. In October, Defence Minister Katz described that presence as permanent, arguing that allowing residents to return could enable terrorist infrastructure to re-emerge. The Hebron operation therefore raises the possibility that Israel is developing a more durable approach to preventing terrorist organizations from establishing territorial strongholds.

There is another particularly relevant precedent in southern Lebanon. For years, Hezbollah transformed villages along the Israeli border into military staging grounds, embedding weapons, launch sites, tunnels and command infrastructure within civilian communities. During the recent war, Israel systematically attacked and destroyed substantial portions of this infrastructure, including buildings and sometimes entire villages. These were not simply residential communities that happened to be near Hezbollah positions; many had been integrated into an extensive military deployment designed to threaten Israeli communities across the border. The lesson is that Israel cannot afford to allow civilian geography to become a shield for an enemy's military infrastructure. The challenge is to ensure that the resulting security arrangements distinguish between the threat posed by that infrastructure and the rights and needs of the civilian population.

There are, of course, legal and humanitarian considerations that Israel must take seriously. International humanitarian law permits civilian evacuation when imperative military requirements or the safety of the population demand it, while also imposing obligations concerning the duration of evacuations and the eventual return of residents. These obligations do not negate Israeli security requirements. Rather, they require Israel to establish a defensible connection between the military threat, the measures taken and the duration of those measures. That is both a legal responsibility and an important consideration in maintaining international support for Israel’s actions.

Israel has an obligation to protect its citizens and soldiers. It cannot accept a situation in which terrorist organizations establish autonomous operating bases from which they can attack Israeli communities and forces, confident that the IDF will eventually withdraw and allow them to rebuild. The traditional cycle of attack, raid, withdrawal and reconstruction has not had a good history of producing lasting security. Israel is entitled to examine whether a more enduring military presence, combined with the dismantling of terrorist infrastructure, can break that cycle.

Hebron may ultimately be remembered as another counterterrorism operation. Or it may mark the beginning of a broader doctrine for securing Judea and Samaria. The objective should be clear: not territorial control for its own sake, and certainly not displacement as an end in itself, but a security environment in which terrorist organizations cannot re-establish the infrastructure needed to threaten Israeli lives. The challenge is to achieve that objective while meeting Israel's legal obligations and allowing civilian life to resume when security conditions permit. Israel should not have to choose between protecting its citizens and conducting its military operations responsibly. It must do both.

Good things,

Ari Sacher