I reject all armed attacks, and I believe that security for Israelis and dignity for Palestinians must form the foundation of any shared future. That position also compels me to ask: Why does an entire Palestinian city become the target of sweeping military measures after a single attack, while we see no equally determined response to protect Palestinians from repeated settler attacks?
Events in Hebron following the October 23 attack make this question urgent. Reports of closures, families forced to leave their homes, raids and demolitions describe measures whose impact extends beyond the perpetrators, affecting large sections of the population and their daily lives.
In my assessment, the speed and scale of this response reveal a political template ready for implementation, activated after Friday’s attack: expanding responsibility from the perpetrator to those around him, then to the neighborhood and the city, and turning civilian life into an instrument of pressure.
This is a political interpretation of the pattern of response, rather than a claim to possess a document proving that the operation’s details were prepared in advance. The question this pattern raises is whether the objective is to pursue those responsible for the attack or to subjugate an entire community by making it bear the consequences.
A double standard in responding to attacks on Palestinian civilians
That question becomes even more pressing when we compare this response with the treatment of settler violence.
When Palestinian civilians are killed in attacks, their property is burned, or their communities are assaulted, where is the mobilization to ensure their protection? Where are the effective, sustained measures to prevent further attacks and bring those responsible to trial?
I reject collective punishment, whether directed at Hebron’s residents or at the residents of settlements from which attackers targeting Palestinians emerge. I demand one standard: Pursue the perpetrator, protect the victim, and do not hold civilians responsible for crimes they did not commit.
The fact that some settlers have been arrested does not, by itself, answer this question. The measure of a law enforcement system is its ability to prevent attacks, investigate them, and hold perpetrators accountable. The problem lies in the persistent gap between the scale of the violence and the effectiveness of deterrence and accountability.
In its reports, the Israeli organization Yesh Din has linked settler violence against Palestinians to the settlement expansion project and described the support this violence receives from state institutions. These findings deserve serious scrutiny and accountability.
In my view, this disparity reflects a deliberate political approach that has become entrenched in practice: tolerance of settler violence that pressures Palestinians to leave, alongside the use of extensive force and measures affecting entire communities when violence comes from the Palestinian side.
The political consequence of this tolerance is clear: Remaining on their land becomes more difficult for Palestinians, while the settlement presence expands. When this pattern repeats itself, it becomes difficult to treat it as a series of security failures disconnected from politics.
The result is two systems of protection and accountability operating on the same land, with their effectiveness varying according to the identity of the perpetrator and the victim.
Protecting lives in the West Bank
Another aspect of this contradiction appears in the way the West Bank is presented within Israel’s statistical framework. Israeli tables covering the population of Israeli localities there count settlers, who number roughly half a million, while the millions of Palestinians living on the same land fall outside that population category.
This statistical distinction reflects the scope of those tables. It does not mean that Palestinians are not counted by other bodies, nor does it establish, on its own, the existence of a discriminatory security policy.
But it raises a deeper question about the exercise of authority: Do the Israeli military and security institutions regard Palestinians as residents whose rights and needs require protection, or primarily as subjects of surveillance and control?
Palestinians exist, and they have a clear legal status and rights. Under the law of occupation, Israel has obligations toward them, such as protecting them from violence, including settler violence, and maintaining public order and civilian life. Those obligations do not disappear because Palestinians lack Israeli citizenship.
The issue, therefore, is the responsibility of an authority legally obliged to provide protection, and the need to hold it accountable when it fails to fulfill that duty or applies it selectively.
Any system that exercises military control over land, roads, and people’s movement, while providing effective protection to one population and leaving another exposed to attack, creates a crisis that goes beyond an isolated security failure. It makes identity a decisive factor in determining who enjoys safety and whose life is restricted in the name of someone else’s security.
As a Palestinian who advocates dialogue and a democratic, demilitarized Palestinian state alongside Israel, I see this reality as a danger to the future of both peoples. We ask young Palestinians to believe in peaceful political action. That choice needs tangible results and confidence that the rights, lives, and property of those who embrace it will be protected.
When a peaceful Palestinian cannot protect his home from an attack or reach his workplace because of a measure imposed on him despite his having no connection to any attack, the credibility of the path we urge him to follow is weakened.
In Masar Jadid – New Path – our guiding message is “From confrontation to dialogue.” We work for politics that improve people’s lives, institutions that protect them, and accountability for perpetrators, whoever they may be.
The people of Hebron deserve protection, freedom of movement, and a life of dignity. So do Palestinians exposed to settler attacks throughout the West Bank.
The true test of any policy claiming to deliver security is its ability to protect civilians and hold those responsible for violence accountable under one standard. Security for Israelis will not be sustainable as long as Palestinians living under Israeli control are denied effective and equal protection.