The Media Line: Israeli Measures After Jerusalem Attack Stir Debate Over Security and Collective Punishment 

Audio By Carbonatix

Enlarge

Israeli Measures After Jerusalem Attack Stir Debate Over Security and Collective Punishment 

Israeli security officials regard punitive measures as essential for survival, while many Palestinians view them as fueling a cycle of violence. 

By Giorgia Valente / The Media Line 

Two Palestinian terrorists opened fire in Jerusalem earlier this week, killing six Israelis in one of the deadliest attacks in the city in recent months. The assault drew widespread condemnation worldwide and has set the stage for a sharp escalation in Israeli responses across the West Bank. 

Within 24 hours, the government announced sweeping measures: revoking 750 Palestinian work permits, threatening to demolish homes in the villages of Qatanna and Al-Qubeiba—the home villages of the two perpetrators—and tightening closures and checkpoints throughout the territory. Israeli officials defended the steps as necessary deterrence. Palestinians and international bodies condemned them as unlawful collective punishment. 

Michael Milshtein, head of the Palestinian Studies Forum at Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center, argued that such responses are deeply entrenched in Israel’s approach. 

“This is a kind of traditional response,” he said to The Media Line. “Every time there is a terror attack, collective punishment is assumed to deter others and to create anger against the terrorists themselves. But in reality, while there are occasional successes, it is not a long-term solution. It is almost an automatic response Israel has carried out for decades,” he added. 

Milshtein explained that while the government sets broad policy, operational decisions are handled by the Shin Bet and the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), often in coordination with the Palestinian Authority. House demolitions, he noted, have been practiced since 1967 despite ongoing legal challenges and limited strategic value. 

“Sometimes, only one floor of a building is destroyed if that is where the terrorist’s family lived. But families often rebuild quickly, sometimes with Hamas funds or with PA support. It becomes a cat-and-mouse game. This shows how limited the deterrence effect really is,” he further explained.  

He also pointed to the risks inherent in such operations: “Before demolitions, engineers conduct detailed checks to avoid collateral damage. But mistakes happen, and sometimes neighboring homes or community infrastructure are affected. Even when damage is contained, the impact ripples through the wider community”, he said. 

Brig. Gen. (res.) Erez Winner, former commander of the operational planning branch in Israel’s Southern Command, insisted the measures are indispensable. 

“When you fight terror, there is no knockout. It is a long, detailed battle,” Winner said to The Media Line. “After Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, it took two and a half years to decisively win against terror in Judea and Samaria. You must repeat the right measures again and again.” he added. 

For him, punitive measures are a matter of survival. 

“Those terrorists came from villages where incitement is part of daily life. People must understand there is a price to pay. For years Israel believed that improving the economy and giving permits would end terror, but October 7 proved otherwise. People with work permits used that access to join the massacre. Terror has a price, and deterrence is stronger than any benefit from work permits.” he noted. 

Ambassador Dr. Omar Awadallah, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Palestinian Authority, painted a starkly different picture. 

“More than 200,000 Palestinian workers have been denied entry to Israel for over two years, without rights or compensation. Unemployment is over 85 percent in Gaza and 40 percent in the West Bank, meaning that most of our population is unemployed,” he said to The Media Line. “Revoking permits now is part of a systematic economic blockade aimed at undermining the Palestinian Authority and pushing people into what Israel calls ‘voluntary emigration.’ In reality, this is forcible displacement.” he added. 

Although exceptions have existed—thousands of Palestinians were still granted entry permits despite the blockade—Israel’s latest decision affects those workers directly. Yet, the attackers in Jerusalem were not legal workers inside Israel, raising questions about the effectiveness of the measure. 

Awadallah described the demolitions in Qatanna and Qubeiba as “war crimes.” 

“Israel will use what happened in Jerusalem as a precondition to extend its genocidal war to the West Bank. This is collective punishment, it is a war crime, and it is part of the ethnic cleansing Israel has pursued for decades—more geography for Israel, less demography for Palestinians.” he said. 

He also pointed to financial measures: 

“Israel has withheld our tax revenues for more than four months, in violation of the Paris Protocol. This money is ours, collected on our behalf. Without it, we cannot pay salaries, support our education and health systems, or sustain government services. They want the Palestinian Authority to collapse.” he added. 

Awadallah argued that the blockade and demolitions weaken Palestinian governance intentionally, while Israel blames the PA for failing to combat radicalism. 

“Israel blocks our movement with thousands of checkpoints, isolates villages, and prevents our security forces from operating. Then it tells the world we do nothing. The truth is they want a weak Palestinian government, so they can say we are incapable. But our people remain steadfast. This is our homeland—we will not leave.” he noted. 

The UN Human Rights Office, while condemning the Jerusalem attack, also criticized Israel’s measures. 

“Sweepingly broad measures such as the revocation of work permits for hundreds of Palestinians without involvement in the attack, threats to demolish homes, as well as blanket closures and movement restrictions, would amount to forms of collective punishment, unlawful under international law,” UN spokesperson Thameen al-Kheetan told The Media Line. 

The spokesperson stressed that collective punishment is explicitly prohibited under the Fourth Geneva Convention. The principle holds that individuals cannot be penalized for acts they did not personally commit. 

“Revoking the livelihoods of entire families, demolishing homes of people not involved, and restricting the movement of entire communities go beyond security responses and risk deepening grievances,” al-Kheetan explained. “Such measures often exacerbate tensions rather than resolve them.” he added. 

He warned that the repetition of these practices risks setting a dangerous precedent. 

“If tolerated, they normalize policies that affect entire populations for the actions of a few, which undermines both international law and long-term stability.” he said. 

The debate highlights a fragile situation in the West Bank, where tensions have risen sharply since the beginning of the war as the international criticism against Israel. 

Winner argued that Israel’s critiques should not underestimate its resolve. 

“In the last two days, Israel has been facing unprecedented attacks aiming at targeting Jews, starting from October 7. We won’t tolerate any more threats like this. Even if we are a small country, we will show our strength and strike back harder, despite critics abroad”, he concluded. 

Awadallah countered that international recognition of a Palestinian state—currently under discussion in capitals from Paris to Ottawa—could reshape the political horizon. 

“Recognition is a good path forward. It is legal, moral, historic, and natural,” he stressed. “It would send Palestinians a message of hope. Israel wants to weaken us economically, block our tax revenues, and force us into collapse, but recognition would show the world that we deserve our independence and our state. After more than 77 years of oppression, this is the only path to peace and stability.” he concluded. 

Milshtein, meanwhile, offered a sober reminder that punitive tactics alone cannot resolve the conflict. 

“Demolitions and revoking permits may deter in the short term, but they are not a strategic solution,” he warned. “Over time, the anger only builds. Without a political horizon, the conflict will recycle itself again and again. Deterrence is not enough; without diplomacy, the cycle of violence will never end.” he concluded.