1. All eyes are now on Nablus.
To a large extent, it will decide the fate of the current wave of terrorism.
The violence did indeed begin north of there, in Jenin, but Jenin is not Nablus, and in any case it is not all of Jenin, but only its refugee camp, which has always been known as a center of anarchy and violence.
Nablus is another matter.
The capital of Samaria, a central city economically and politically.
The Palestinian Authority will live with the loosening of its rule in Jenin.
She cannot afford this to happen to her in Nablus.
If Nablus falls to the extremists, the rush will immediately flow south, to the Judea region.
From there, returning the reins to her will be difficult to impossible.
In recent months, the PA thought they could live with "both".
Both to loosen the reins a little on the extremists, and to continue the security cooperation with Israel.
The series of attacks that came out of Nablus and its surroundings taught the PA that these are false dreams: that the weapons that are now directed at Israel, will be directed at Israel in the future.
This was also helped by explicit clarifications/threats from Israel, that if the PA does not act to calm the area, Israel will do it itself.
The Palestinians asked for an opportunity;
The present days are their test.
A local gang that calls itself the "Lions Den" is responsible for most of the chaos that comes out of Nablus.
Contrary to the explosive name, this is a group that is relatively easy to break up: big terrorists and great courage are not there.
Israel would do well if it ended this story - on its own or by forcing the PA to fulfill its commitment - before the lions accumulate more weapons, terrorists and courage. Any delay will lead to more attacks, by this group or similar ones, of the type in which a Givati Ido patrol fighter was killed in the middle of the week in captivity in Samaria blessed.
2. In the attack in which Baruch was killed, and in the attack in which the crossing fighter Noa Lazar was killed a few days earlier, quite a few problems with the functioning of the forces stood out.
In the first attack, in Shuafat camp, the number of incidents was almost unimaginable.
The worst of them was the lack of reaction of the fighters - including armed security guards, which is their profession - in a way that would have thwarted the escape of the terrorist-shooter and his assistants.
Even in the second attack, the fighters did not react in real time.
The scenario of shooting in seconds from a passing vehicle is indeed more complicated to react than shooting at a roadblock, but patrol fighters were expected to come to their senses and act faster.
The various elements in the central command, with an emphasis on the commander of the Yosh Division Avi Belot, must make sure that this is not a horizontal problem, and if so - provide an immediate solution to it. As always, this should be done by operation orders and clear instructions, and above all by initiation and control from the front of the command The junior in the field.
The defensive effort to curb terrorism is critical from four aspects: the first, to reduce casualties on the Israeli side.
The second, to make it clear to the terrorists that their chances of success are slim, as are their chances of getting out alive from attempted attacks.
The third, to prevent imitation attempts.
For every attack like this that succeeds, Palestinians rise up and tell themselves that it is possible.
Given the amount of weapons in the territories, this increases the threat many times over.
The fourth aspect is offensive.
A large number of casualties creates political and public pressure on the political-security elite to make decisions under pressure.
On the other hand, the absence of casualties makes it possible to act calmly and on the basis of solid intelligence, and to ensure that the strong defense will be accompanied by effective results in the attack as well.
3. Quite a few media outlets, as well as politicians, stated that Baruch and Zar were "murdered" by terrorists.
This is a mistake that the time has come to uproot from the discourse: IDF soldiers are not murdered. They are killed or fall in the performance of their duties.
This is not semantics. The murdered is passive. That they were murdered dwarfs them. It also dwarfs the IDF, and turns it into one that needs protection.
The IDF debated over the years which terminology would be correct. In 2017, Nahal soldier Ron Kokia Barad was stabbed to death.
In the IDF spokesman's statement at the time, it was claimed that he was "killed". The spokesman (then Ronan Manelis) received a flood of criticism for not using the term "fallen". As a result, a civilian committee was formed, which recommended using the term "fallen" in any announcement about a soldier who was killed. Similar that both terms are appropriate and preserve the dignity of the soldier (or soldier) to the same extent. "murdered" does the opposite.
4. The economic water agreement with Lebanon (the gas agreement) became a political event from the first moment.
The facts played a secondary role in it: the speakers talked about security and the economy, but they meant the elections.
That is why it was advisable to listen to the professionals, but in the discourse that developed - the gods, the conflict - it was no longer possible to listen to anything.
In this night of shouting, the heads of the security establishment were accused of acting from political motives, and opinion is influenced by this.
This is a particularly outrageous statement: at the head of the security establishment there are better and fewer people, more and less talented, more and less brave (personally and publicly).
It is doubtful if anyone is there for political reasons.
Their collective guilt is meant to scare them from taking a stand.
This is dangerous, because a yes-many professional level is a recipe for disaster.
It is true that even a professional level that thinks and speaks with one voice is not particularly healthy, but the solution facing the political level is simple: not to accept his opinion, while taking responsibility for himself.
It is doubtful if this will happen, knowing the tradition of the politicians in Israel escaping responsibility.
Think about the operations that the Mossad and its people are doing in Iran.
About the actions of the Air Force and the Israeli Defense Forces in Syria. About the Shin Bet's risking their lives in an effort to thwart terrorist attacks.
Now say if there is a chance that they do (or don't do) all of these for political reasons, or that they are sent (or not sent) there by their commanders for political reasons.
Those who think so, are asked to disconnect from the virtual reality glasses.
5. This debate left another victim on the side of the road: the USA. It is argued that its commitment cannot be trusted, in light of its conduct with Ukraine, and in other cases.
This is also a brazen claim when it comes from politicians in a country that has received for more than 40 years nearly 4 billion dollars in annual defense aid, plus additional generous external funding for the air defense systems, plus additional defensive and offensive security components, plus the fact that the Americans are careful to preserve the qualitative advantage her in front of all the factors in the region, plus the ongoing intelligence assistance and political support given to her, and much more.
It is true that the Americans see life from Washington and consider their own interest first.
But Israel does not have, never had and will not have a great and important friend from the USA. This is a matter that has been tested for 50 years, since the "air train" in the Yom Kippur War. This does not mean that Israel should not rely only on itself, but it should very well not underestimate the hand The hand (and in the deep pocket) that she receives from Washington.
The American administration could and should have done more in the Ukrainian context (not that Israel excelled in this), but in the context of the gas agreement, it should be examined against the simple question of whether it moved war away or closer and at what cost, and what the alternatives are.
Any other discussion is political.
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us
