If the law is clear, the response must be clear

(JNS) — Israel’s greatest strength is not only its military resilience or technological success, but its insistence on building a democratic, lawful, moral society in a region where power often substitutes for principle and justice is too often replaced by vengeance.

From the first days of its founding, the State of Israel has insisted that Jewish sovereignty must rest on a different foundation — one anchored in due process, accountable government, ethical national defense and a justice system that binds leaders and citizens alike, Jews and non-Jews. This tradition is not merely philosophical; it is strategic. It is the reason Israel can credibly argue, at home and abroad, that it fights by different rules than its adversaries.

For that reason, the recent rise of violent actions attributed to the so-called “Hilltop Youth” in parts of Judea and Samaria is not a marginal problem or a minor embarrassment. It is a strategic, legal and moral vulnerability. When minors burn mosques, torch vehicles, destroy agricultural property, attack and intimidate Arab civilians or form unauthorized vigilante groups, the questions Israel must ask are not merely sympathetic or sociological.

The relevant question is whether these actions constitute criminal violence, and more importantly, whether the state is willing to respond with clarity rather than hesitation. A country that prides itself on being governed by law cannot afford legal fog simply because the perpetrators are young, Jewish or draped in national or religious symbolism.

Under Israeli law, terrorism is defined not by biography, age or religious heritage, but by intent and effect: the use or threat of violence against civilians for ideological, nationalistic or religious motives. When a synagogue is attacked abroad, Jews rightly call it terrorism, regardless of the perpetrator’s age, education or personal history. If a group of Palestinian teenagers burned down a synagogue near Jerusalem to frighten Jews away, no Israeli or global Jewish organization would dismiss it as simple teenage mischief. The same legal framework must guide our thinking when Arab property or houses of worship are targeted by Jews.

That doesn’t mean that every offender must be formally branded as a terrorist, and it certainly doesn’t deny the need for age-appropriate legal handling or rehabilitation. But refusal to apply accurate legal categories or to enforce the law fully simply because the offenders are Jews undermines Israel’s most powerful claim: that it is different.

Israel already possesses ample legal tools to address these incidents, including criminal statutes, law-enforcement mandates, intelligence coordination, restraining orders and frameworks for juvenile justice. What appears to be missing is not legislation but consistency, political courage and the willingness to commit fully to enforcement without fear of internal backlash.

Today, public condemnations are common, but arrests are inconsistent. Intelligence is available, but preventive measures appear uneven. And elected officials speak of red lines, though they seem to avoid actions that risk criticism from parts of the national-religious or settlement communities.

Meanwhile, some of the minors involved have disengaged from formal education systems, supervision and stable community structures, creating unsupervised peer networks where grievance and ideology reinforce each other with little moderating influence. Sympathy for their backgrounds cannot become an excuse for inaction.

The Israel Defense Forces find themselves placed in a nearly impossible role: asked both to protect Jewish communities against terror and to police Jewish minors who violate the law. Armies are designed to deter enemies—not to manage juvenile delinquency, ideological extremism or community-based crime. Assigning these duties to the IDF blurs mission clarity, complicates rules of engagement and places soldiers in a position where any decision risks political criticism.

Responsibility for law enforcement belongs to the civilian system, and Israel should consider creating a dedicated multi-agency law-enforcement structure in Judea and Samaria with specialized juvenile and deradicalization units, along with clear accountability for adults who incite or materially support illegal acts.

The young people involved often insist that they are defending or advancing the Jewish claim to the land. Yet their actions achieve the opposite. A single viral image of Jewish youth torching a mosque or vandalizing Palestinian property is more damaging to Israel’s global legitimacy than a week’s worth of biased NGO reports. These incidents undermine Israel’s claim that it upholds responsible, lawful sovereignty in disputed territories, and they offer hostile actors, including international courts, activist networks and other governments, ready-made evidence to argue that Israel tolerates lawlessness. Words from officials, diplomats or spokespersons cannot neutralize the damage created by a few reckless individuals on a hilltop armed not only with spray paint or matches but with a worldview that ignores both law and responsibility.

This is not simply a youth problem. It is a state-credibility problem.

Israel’s values are clear, and its right to defend its citizens is uncontested. But rights are strengthened, not weakened, when enforced fairly. A society that demands accountability from others must demonstrate accountability within its own ranks.

Jerusalem does not need new principles to address this challenge; it needs the resolve to apply the principles it already holds. Violence and intimidation are not legitimate tools of Jewish nationalism, and those who employ them—no matter how young, no matter how sincere—must face law, not leniency dressed in ideology.

Stephen M. Flatow is president of the Religious Zionists of America. He is the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995, and author of “A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror.”