Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision at Sunday’s security cabinet meeting to delay bringing to a vote a recommendation allowing Palestinian workers from the West Bank back into Israel shows how much things have changed and have remained the same since October 7.
What has remained unchanged? First, a tendency to put off tough decisions; an inclination to kick the can down the road.
Since Hamas started a war with Israel on October 7, some 109,000 Palestinians from the West Bank have not been allowed back into work in Israel because of security considerations. This has caused two things: economic distress in the PA, and a shortage of workers inside Israel.
A decision on the matter needs to be made one way or the other so that if the workers are not allowed back into Israel, ways to alleviate economic hardship in the West Bank can be found.
Likewise, if the workers are not allowed back inside the Green Line, Israel will need to bring in tens of thousands of workers from other countries to fill the vacancies, primarily in the agricultural and construction sectors.
Lack of voting
Why was a vote not taken? Because Netanyahu felt he did not have sufficient votes inside the expanded 14-member security cabinet to get the step approved. In other words, because of politics.
While there is a naive hope that during a time of war, politics should be put to the side and should not play a role in decision-making, that is an unrealistic expectation.
Politicians will make decisions based on political considerations both in times of war and in times of peace. In times of war, one would hope that all decisions are made based on what is good for the nation, rather than on one’s narrow political considerations. But in times of war, there may also be genuine disagreement over what is, in fact, for the good of the nation.
This issue falls squarely into that category.
Those who favor letting the Palestinians into Israel work – Netanyahu, the National Security Council, the IDF, and the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) – argue that if this is not done, economic distress may lead to increased violence and tension inside the West Bank. Further, they argue that conditions can be placed on the workers – only married men over the age of 35 allowed in, transporting them directly to their workplaces and not allowing them to roam freely inside Israel – that will reduce the security threat.
The counter-argument is that these workers pose a security risk – not only in the sense of possibly carrying out terrorist attacks but also in gathering intelligence. In this argument, Israel needs to wean itself off its dependence on Palestinian workers, and this is the time to start. The police, who answer to National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, opposed the move.
This is a genuine argument. When does it slide into partisan politics? When Likud ministers – who might have supported the move on its merits – came out in opposition because Religious Zionist Party Finance Mister Bezalel Smotrich and Otzma Yehudit’s Ben-Gvir, as well as newly enlisted security cabinet minister Gideon Sa’ar from the National Unity Party, let it be known they opposed the measure. Once this happened, according to reports, various Likud ministers could not support it, fearful of how it would play among their constituents for them to be outflanked on the Right by other parties.
If delaying important decisions and playing politics has not changed since October 7, what has?
For one thing, the weight given to the opinions of the security establishment. The IDF and the Shin Bet supported allowing the workers in, arguing that a failure to do so would only increase economic pressure inside an already extremely volatile West Bank, add to the overall frustration there, and lead to an explosion.
What has changed – and this is something that will be felt for a long time going forward – is how much weight to attribute to the recommendations or opinions of the IDF and Shin Bet. Their assessments lost more than just a little credibility as a result of the October 7 massacre, and it will take some doing before the public places blind trust again in their assessments.
What else has changed? The idea is that economic stability buys security. For years the assumption that held sway regarding Gaza was that if Israel could ensure some kind of economic stability, then quiet could be maintained. This was part of the overall security conception that collapsed on October 7 – that if you allow suitcases of money into Gaza from Qatar, you can buy quiet.
It failed there, and an argument can be made that there is no guarantee of its success in Judea and Samaria as well. Or, as Smotrich said in a post on X, “Money and building permits do not buy peace. Anyone who killed us when there was no money will kill us also when there is money.”
In addition, October 7 also led to a change in the readiness of the country to look for alternatives to Palestinian workers.
Although there has been talk of this in the past, the massacres made the issue more pressing. Economy and Industry Minister Nir Barkat, for instance, posted on X, “The reality changed on 7/10, and unfortunately, there are those who don’t realize it. The days that Israel will rely on the labor of Palestinian workers are over.” As Barkat wrote, “We must act to cut red tape and bring in tens of thousands of workers from other countries as soon as possible.”
The horror of October 7 undoubtedly will give a back-wind to this thinking, especially since some Palestinian workers allowed in from Gaza provided intelligence information to Hamas that gave them the lay of the land in the communities they attacked. Before the invasion of some 3,000 Hamas terrorists on October 7, there was little public discussion about a concern that Palestinian workers may be conducting reconnaissance missions for terrorists. Now that has changed.
Much has changed since October 7, and the decision to delay a vote on this issue just gives a small glimpse into how even bigger decisions will be impacted by the trauma of the colossal failures and the savage massacres on that day.