It was NOT Retaliation

Palestinian Islamic Jihad “took responsibility” for the explosion in Hadera that killed five and wounded more than 20 yesterday, claiming retaliation for the killing earlier this week of a top Islamic Jihad leader by the IDF. In the State Department briefing on the subject, the usual platitudes were uttered by the spokesman – who then had to deal with no fewer than eight incarnations of the questions, “What will this do to the peace process? Couldn’t we have foreseen this bombing because it was retaliation for an Israeli targeted assassination?

Palestinian Islamic Jihad “took responsibility” for the explosion in Hadera that killed five and wounded more than 20 yesterday, claiming retaliation for the killing earlier this week of a top Islamic Jihad leader by the IDF. In the State Department briefing on the subject, the usual platitudes were uttered by the spokesman – who then had to deal with no fewer than eight incarnations of the questions, “What will this do to the peace process? Couldn’t we have foreseen this bombing because it was retaliation for an Israeli targeted assassination? If they (the Israelis) are able to assassinate them, can’t they also arrest them instead of escalating the violence? Doesn’t the U.S. oppose such assassinations?”

The spokesman responded several times with the point that the U.S. position on “that” (declining to use the term) was “well known and hasn’t changed.” While we are pleased that he didn’t allow the reporters to blame Israel, we do wish he had addressed the points. We will do it for him.

1. The bombing was not retaliation for the killing of Luay Sa’adi on Sunday. Experts in Israel have described the process by which suicide bombings are planned – the selection of a target and a bomber, the guide for the bomber, the car, moving the explosives into place, the trial runs, the escape plan for the guide, etc. It takes a minimum of two to three weeks to put it together. And for every bomber that succeeds, a great many others have been stopped in various stages of planning or executing the crime. PIJ, Hamas, Fatah, et. al., bomb what and who they can when they can. It is only serendipity if the timing for a successful attack works out so they can try to hang the responsibility on the victim.
2. The U.S. does not approve of Israel’s narrowly focused removal of PIJ and Hamas leaders hiding among civilians, hoping to be protected by Israel’s unwillingness to inflict collateral damage. We would argue that such strikes removed the top leadership of Hamas, producing periods of calm that have permitted the political process to continue. Interestingly, the State Department appears to have no position on the targeted killing of Palestinians accused of “collaboration with Israel” without the benefit of trial, never mind the benefit of evidence (see JINSA Reports 203, 204, 276 and 470).
3. On the question of “can’t they just arrest them?” the answer should be “no.” Israel in under no obligation to sacrifice its soldiers by sending them into the narrow, hostile streets of Palestinian cities to knock on a door and serve an arrest warrant. Terrorists deserve no such polite request. Targeted strikes prevent the collateral damage to which the world objects, and protects the soldiers.

Media references to a Hamas/PIJ “ceasefire” that came to an end in Hadera miss the point and so did the State Department spokesman. There has been no ceasing of fire by Palestinian terrorists determined to kill Israelis – there have been continuing mortars and shootings, and now the successful suicide bomber. Israel’s defensive measures, including the security fence and targeted strikes, have simply made it harder for terrorists to reach their intended victims. For that, Israelis are no doubt grateful and the State Department should not feel defensive.