Time for tough decisions

The Diplomatic-Security Cabinet had to make difficult decisions Monday, all while considering the right-wing ministers' demand for a crackdown on terrorism on the one hand, and the defense establishment, including Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, warning that exacerbating steps on the ground will only foster further security escalation, which in turn may spiral into a full-fledged Palestinian uprising across Judea and Samaria, east Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

Given the recent wave of terrorism, the natural inclination is to order wide-scale action, including massive deployment on the ground, mitigating the rules of engagements, and aggravating the limitations imposed on the Palestinian population.

Avoiding such steps has both advantages and disadvantages.

The advantages of trying to contain the situation, as Israel did during the previous wave of violence, is that it preserves the status of the handful of individuals and apparatuses trying to rein in the violence, most notably the collaboration with the Palestinian security forces, which is ongoing despite recent events, as well as reducing any harm that comes to the civilian Palestinian population.

The disadvantages of trying to contain the situation spell faster erosion of deterrence, and potentially seeing the situation spiral out of control -- on the Israeli side, as well.

The holiday saw dozens of "price-tag" attacks carried out by Jewish extremists, including the torching of cars and olive groves, in retaliation for both Palestinian terrorist attacks and what is perceived as the state's helplessness opposite the security escalation. Several Palestinians were wounded, and six Jews were arrested, leading defense officials to label the situation on the ground "a dangerous atmosphere of anarchy."

The Palestinians are facing similar dilemmas. Despite the belligerent statements made by Palestinian leaders, behind the scene the same leaders have informed their Israeli counterparts that they seek to de-escalate the situation.

Palestinian Authority officials are concerned by both a potentially harsh Israeli reaction, as well as by Hamas, which is using recent events to incite more violence and a new intifada. Hamas knows that a third Palestinian uprising would require it make certain sacrifices in the Gaza Strip, and it is gearing up for a possible escalation in southern Israel.

Arab media are also fanning the flames, focusing on the Temple Mount. Israel's decision to limit Muslim worshipers' access of to Al-Aqsa mosque and closing some of the Old City's gates as a security measure, has created the perception that Israel seeks to impose a physical change on the ground, similar to the one upheld in the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron.

Despite Israel and the Palestinians' statement that both seek to restore calm, it seems escalation is inevitable. The gaping chasm between actions and words, the stalled peace talks, the absence of American intervention, and the radical forces pulling both sides in opposite directions, seem to have come together to thwart all de-escalation efforts.

Still, Israel would be wise to ensure no effort is spared to avoid further escalation on the ground. These efforts must be prudent, and while they must include an increase in intelligence gathering efforts, so to foil any future terrorist attacks, they must also refrain, as much as possible, from resulting in Palestinian casualties, as those would be a catalyst for escalation on the ground.

Israel should also make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that it is not seeking any change in the status quo on the Temple Mount, and utilize all potential avenues to get Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas talking again.

Only a combination of these efforts could defuse the current volatile situation. The alternative is clear, as are the far-reaching security and diplomatic ramifications it would entail.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו