2017 Halamish Stabbing Attack

The attack followed a July 14, 2017, attack at the Temple Mount in which two Israeli police officers were killed, and subsequent clashes over new security measures at the site.[1] Metal detectors installed at entrances to the compound became a focus of protests.[1] In his interrogation, Omar al-Abed linked his decision to attack to the installation of the detectors and events surrounding the Temple Mount.[3] Before the attack, he also posted on Facebook that he would act to “defend” the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.[1]

Al-Abed came from Kobar, a village near Halamish.[7] He studied business administration at al-Quds Open University, was active in its Hamas student faction, and worked in a quarry.[7] Palestinian security forces had detained him several times, most recently in April 2017 after receiving information that he was planning an attack, but released him when his intentions could not be proved.[7]

The military prosecution’s indictment alleged that al-Abed initially considered obtaining an explosive belt or a firearm before deciding on a stabbing attack.[8] It also alleged that he corresponded with people in Gaza about his intention to become a martyr, sent a female acquaintance a testament to publish afterward, and tried to involve a friend in preparations before ultimately acting alone.[8] His Facebook message before the attack connected his planned action to events at Al-Aqsa and included the words: “I loved life, making people smile, but what kind of life is this? They kill our women and young people, defile our Al-Aqsa, and we are asleep.”[3]

On Friday evening, July 21, the Salomon family gathered at their home in Halamish, also known as Neve Tzuf, for a Shabbat meal celebrating the birth of a grandchild.[3] Ten people were present, and four family members were stabbed.[3] Early reporting placed the attack at approximately 9:30 p.m.[3]

Al-Abed traveled on foot from Kobar to Halamish, a distance of roughly 2.5 kilometers.[4] The indictment alleged that he took a meat-cutting knife from his father’s shop and waited for nightfall while reading the Quran.[8] An early account also described him carrying a bag and a Quran and washing himself with water before entering the community, an action described as ritual purification.[9]

The military investigation reconstructed his passage through several perimeter barriers: he crawled under one fence, cut through another with scissors, and climbed over additional fences.[10] Contact with the perimeter triggered an electronic alert, but the responding patrol failed to locate him.[6] After entering through the community’s cemetery, he reached two homes and chose the lit Salomon house after hearing laughter inside.[8][11]

The indictment’s account stated that al-Abed asked Chaya Salomon, “What about Al-Aqsa?” before stabbing her, then attacked her mother, Tova, and father, Yosef.[8] Elad Salomon fought him and briefly took possession of the knife, but al-Abed overpowered and stabbed him.[8] Yosef, 70, and his children Chaya, 46, and Elad were killed; Tova survived with serious injuries.[9] Chaya was a teacher, and Elad was the father of five children.[9][4]

Elad’s wife, Michal, took their five children to an upstairs room, where she sheltered them and called police.[8][3] A neighbor serving in the Oketz unit, who was home on leave, heard cries from the house, retrieved his weapon, and saw the attacker through a window.[4] He fired a single shot that struck al-Abed in the abdomen.[4] The soldier, identified in the military investigation account as Sgt. A., then entered the house with his father to identify the assailant and summon security forces.[10] Police and the Israel Defense Forces arrested the wounded attacker.[2]

Approximately 15 minutes elapsed between the initial perimeter alert and the soldier’s intervention.[6] The family members hidden in the separate room survived the attack.[3]

Israeli security forces raided al-Abed’s home in Kobar, imposed a closure on the village, and detained Palestinians.[7] Clashes occurred between Palestinians and Israeli forces at the village entrance, and Israel’s defense minister ordered the attacker’s house demolished.[7] On August 16, 2017, Israeli forces demolished the two-story home.[12] Clashes accompanied the operation, during which a Palestinian journalist was injured; villagers subsequently provided al-Abed’s family with a replacement plot of land.[12] Michal Salomon contrasted the possibility of rebuilding the attacker’s house with the permanent loss suffered by her own family.[12]

Hamas praised the attack.[7] A Hamas spokesman characterized it as a result of “Israel’s crimes” in Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa, while a political-bureau member urged young Palestinians to follow the attacker’s example.[7] These statements expressed Hamas’s justification and encouragement of the attack.[7]

Al-Abed’s mother, Ibtisam al-Abed, was detained on charges described as “aggravated incitement” after praising the attack in a video and distributing candies to neighbors.[13] She was also quoted as saying her son’s actions were “not acceptable,” while describing them as courageous in the eyes of the nation.[13] Five of al-Abed’s relatives were subsequently sentenced to prison for failing to prevent the attack despite knowing of his intention.[11] His father received two months, his mother one month and a fine, and two brothers and an uncle eight months each.[11] His mother was also convicted of incitement over the video posted after the attack.[11] The relatives described the attack as a “natural response” to events at Al-Aqsa, while the military spokesperson characterized their convictions as a significant counterterrorism precedent.[11]

In December 2017, the Ofer Military Court convicted al-Abed of three counts of murder, two counts of attempted aggravated manslaughter, incitement, and other charges.[5] The Military Advocate-General’s Office sought four life sentences.[5] In February 2018, the court imposed four life terms: three for the murders and a fourth for his intention to kill Tova Salomon.[5] The court also ordered compensation to the family.[5] One judge, Lt. Col. Dov Gilboa, dissented in favor of the death penalty, but the other two judges opposed it; a death sentence required unanimity.[5] The court called for al-Abed not to be released in a future prisoner deal.[5]

The military inquiry found that an electronic infiltration alert had been triggered, but information about its severity did not reach the responsible company or patrol.[6] The patrol investigating the alert thought it might have been caused by wind or an animal.[10] Its members did not leave their vehicle and failed to spot al-Abed hiding in bushes near a dark section of the fence.[6] The investigation attributed the delayed response partly to ineffective communication between the community’s civilian security apparatus and the military.[6]

A decision to fund security upgrades roughly eight months before the attack had not been implemented because of bureaucratic delays.[6] Planned improvements, including radar and cameras, had not been installed, although the inquiry concluded that they might have helped identify the attacker earlier.[6] It also found that heightened operational procedures declared after the early-July events at the Temple Mount had not been translated into adequate measures in the field.[6]

Disciplinary measures affected both military and civilian security personnel.[6] A company commander was reprimanded, a regional-defense officer received a command note, and a sector patrol commander was sentenced to 21 days’ confinement.[6] The community’s security coordinator was reprimanded, while the coordinator’s deputy and a civilian guard were removed from their posts.[6]

Following the inquiry, the army held training and briefings for community security coordinators, strengthened communication procedures, and upgraded a technological system intended to identify warning signs from potential attackers.[6] The military spokesperson characterized the failures as tactical and said the conduct during the incident did not reflect routine operational practice in the area.[6]

The inquiry’s disciplinary consequences drew criticism that accountability had fallen mainly on lower-ranking personnel.[6] The military maintained that the attack had been investigated and its lessons passed to forces in the area.[6] The sentencing proceedings also produced a substantive judicial disagreement over punishment: one member of the three-judge panel favored execution, while the majority imposed life imprisonment.[5]