According to a recent study, 67 percent of those who committed or attempted lone-wolf terrorist attacks in Israel over the last few years had a history of mental illness. One of them was a young Israeli Arab named Ahmed Mohammad Hamid, who had spent time in a mental institution and was recently killed in his attempt to stab a police officer. The researchers, led by the psychologist Ariel Merari, also conducted interviews with people imprisoned by Israel for acts of terror; these bolstered the evidence that suicidal tendencies, mental illness, and personal problems are linked to terrorism. But do the findings suggest that there is no connection between terrorism and anti-Israel ideology? Quite the contrary, writes Nadav Shragai:

Like many other attackers suffering personal distress, some of whom were psychotic or were part of the troubled fringes of Palestinian society, Hamid will soon be getting a status upgrade. He will be moved from . . . the rejected end of the Palestinian [social] spectrum and given a place of honor in the pantheon of Palestinian ethno-religious martyrs. His wild, incitement-filled funeral . . . was just the first sign that the process has begun.

Merari said the sample revealed that family troubles were much more likely to motivate women to commit a terrorist attack than to motivate men. Security officials recount stories of women who took to terrorism because they were being forced to marry against their will, or because their husbands were divorcing them and trying to take their children, and even one case of a female attacker who approached a security guard at a West Bank checkpoint and asked him to shoot her. . . .

“Muslims,” [said Merari], “like Jews or Catholics, are not allowed to commit suicide. A Muslim who commits suicide is destined to eternal hell. Dying while carrying out a terrorist attack, [however], is not only not forbidden, it is recommended by many [religious authorities]. For someone who wants to die, this is a religiously legitimate way.”

[Furthermore, he continued] “there is no doubt synergy with the public and social atmosphere. This is where the hard-core incitement comes in [as well as] the copycat element. . . . When a woman with difficult family problems wants to die, for totally personal reasons, the first thing that occurs to her is, ‘I’ll go kill an Israeli soldier, and then I’ll have social legitimacy. Society will see me positively.’ The daily reporting of these incidents in the Palestinian media and the legitimacy they are given there guides a potential suicide terrorist to choose this manner of death.”

In addition to these extreme cases, writes Shragai, a number of attackers see “martyrdom” as a way to redeem themselves after somehow bringing shame to their families, especially as they know their relatives will benefit financially from their deaths.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”