On the night of June 1, 2001, scores of carefree teenagers were dancing at the Dolphinarium discotheque in Tel Aviv, on what was a typical Friday night, when an Arab suicide bomber blew himself up, killing 21 people and wounding some 120 others. The attack was widely condemned, even by some Arab statesmen, including Kuwaiti ruler Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jaber al-Sabah, who said he did not support "suicide bombings against civilians." Only one leader lingered in his response to the deadly attack: then-Palestinian Authority President and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. Fearing Israeli retaliation, Arafat convinced Foreign Minister Shimon Peres to ask Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to exercise restraint. Peres complied, saying "restraint is also forceful," and a military response was shelved. A year later, terrorism struck at the Park Hotel in Netanya, when a suicide bomber killed 30 people and injured 140 others. Arafat condemned the massacre but the censure was nothing but lip service, and that was clear to any sensible person. October 2015's wave of terrorism is one of the worst the Israeli people have known in recent years, and at times it seems to be escalating to a point of no return. Public officials and pundits alike have been trying too hard to explain the reasons behind this surge in violence. Why too hard? Because each commentator usually has numerous ready-made answers he can apply to such situations, regardless of when they take place, including poverty, distress, despair and occupation. Only one motive was missing: religion. Strangely, the recent wave of terrorism has seen both instigating and restraining elements collaborate to prevent a full-blown intifada, as one might ignite the entire region. One would expect Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who has no qualms about lying in every address, to denounce the recent murderous stabbing attacks, for the sake of appearance if nothing else just as Arafat did, but Abbas remains obstinate, as if he is exempt from the basic act of condemnation, even if in his case it is nothing more than an empty disapproval of terror. Israel does not demand that economic or diplomatic boycotts be imposed on the Palestinians to illustrate the truth, but believes the truth will eventually permeate the same spheres left hollow by the Palestinians' lies. For this reason, Israel must demand Abbas' censure of terrorism, even if only as a symbolic gesture. Abbas' deafening silence is intensified in light of the tremendous change in electronic media over the last decade, namely the creation of social media platforms. An increasing number of experts agree that social media is the most influential catalyst for stabbing attacks. The exposure afforded to a 13-year-old boy who carries out a terrorist attack spurs other impressionable teenage boys to pursue terrorist activities and fan the flames. However, social media has a two-pronged effect: One word of condemnation from Abbas and the order to quell terrorism will be set in stone rather than in ice. Abbas seeks to hold diplomatic negotiations, even if he claims their results can be foretold. Israel should continue to push Abbas to condemn terrorism, because dropping this demand will be perceived as a sign of weakness, and Abbas would see it as yet another victory. The fight against this new brand of terrorism, enhanced via social media, is like a game of chess: Israel's demand that the Palestinian Authority condemn violence is independent of the security establishment's actions, and, like in a game of chess, it requires patience and wisdom to anticipate the next moves. Alongside the demand for a Palestinian condemnation, the ethical question in this case is, how many dead terrorists can Palestinian society tolerate? How much blood would have to be spilled until the last-remaining instigator realizes that the Jewish people's desire to live supersedes the "heroism" of a terrorist who stabs an 80-year-old woman in the back-
The elusive Palestinian condemnation
מערכת ישראל היום
מערכת "ישראל היום“ מפיקה ומעדכנת תכנים חדשותיים, מבזקים ופרשנויות לאורך כל שעות היממה. התוכן נערך בקפדנות, נבדק עובדתית ומוגש לציבור מתוך האמונה שהקוראים ראויים לעיתונות טובה יותר - אמינה, אובייקטיבית ועניינית.
