One of the conspicuous phenomena in the realm of “violent extremism”—acts of violence motivated by religious, political, or ideological reasons—that developed in the no man’s land of Judea and Samaria is known as “price tag.” In this context, a salient role was given to a few foundational documents, the most prominent of which earned the name “Rebellion Documents.” I will briefly review the contents of these outstanding documents and the people affiliated with them.

In the Beginning

The earliest references to “price tag” or “mutual guarantee” date back to 2006. The phenomenon took shape in Yitzhar in 2008 and made headlines in December 2009. This occurred when activists from the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in Yitzhar set fire to the second floor of a mosque in the center of the village of Yasuf in Samaria. They broke the front door, poured gasoline throughout the building, vandalized the library, burned copies of the Qur’an and carpets, and sprayed hateful inscriptions in Hebrew. This incident marked the first time the Israel General Security Agency (Shin Bet) paid serious attention to the “price-tag” phenomenon.

Between 2008 and 2012, Jewish activists in various places across the country, as well as in the territories of Judea and Samaria, executed several “price-tag” actions. These actions were characterized by extreme operations with nationalist motives, the spreading of propaganda, and provocatively publicizing their deeds. These operations included arson of property owned by Muslims and Christians, primarily vehicles and religious buildings, and leaving inciting inscriptions. The aim of these operations was to stir unrest among the Arab population in the State of Israel and the territories of Judea and Samaria, compelling IDF forces and the Israel Police to allocate substantial resources to maintain security and order.

The Turning Point—The Rebellion Infrastructure (October 2013)

Toward the end of 2013, the Shin Bet identified an organized group of “price-tag” activists. This group aimed to consolidate and develop a more extreme and violent approach, intending to destabilize the State of Israel through violent extremism and terrorist acts. These included damage to property and even injury to soul. The group’s ultimate goal was to stage a coup in the State of Israel. The activists began forming a secret infrastructure based on a practical plan that had been previously distributed.

Most operations in the rebellion are “inciting” in nature. The plan targeted the state’s vulnerabilities to provoke riots and “ignite all the explosive barrels” the activists had identified. The rebellion involves, in practice, actively refusing orders, and non-recognition of the courts.

First on their agenda was the Temple Mount: orchestrating mass provocation events—such as noisy activities, organizing break-ins, barricading themselves inside the complex’ or simultaneously blocking several gates used by Muslims.

Second was the focus on expelling non-Jewish minorities from the State of Israel, including Arabs, Druze, and Bedouins. Likewise, undermining relations between Israel and other countries; actions against Christians, such as demonstrations in front of churches demanding their demolition; burning foreign embassies to damage Israel’s international relations, particularly with the Vatican and Christian-majority countries.

Third, they sought to uphold religious coercion in the public sphere, aiming to deepen the divide within the State of Israel and disrupt the status quo between religious and secular Jews. This involved targeting businesses open on Shabbat or selling non‑kosher food. The planners emphasized these actions as forms of “self-sacrifice,” encouraging a readiness to face severe consequences, including lengthy imprisonment.

The common denominator in all these actions, as identified by the Shin Bet, was the rebellion infrastructure, which was explicitly outlined in the “To Rebellion” (LeMered) documents and epitomized by that of “The Kingdom of Malice” (Malchut HaZadon) document.

The “To Rebellion” Documents (2013)

Two documents summarized the concept of the “rebellion,” the details of which are presented below:

To Rebellion—1

The document outlines the conceptual foundations of the “rebellion,” and proposes the requirements to initiate it. It opens with a section titled “Who is on the Lord’s side—Let him come unto me,” noting that the Jews were commanded in the Torah to do three mitzvot [the public mitzvot that the People of Israel were required to fulfill when they entered the Promised Land and listed by the Rambam]: To choose a king; to wipe out the descendants of Amalek, and to build God’s Chosen House—the Temple. The obvious question they posed is “How do we actually fulfill these commandments?” The authors asserted that if the government interferes with the purpose and prevents the building of the Temple and eventually reaching true and complete redemption, “we need to think about how to overthrow it. This, in brief, is the idea of the ‘rebellion.’” They elaborate that “the intention is to dismantle the structure of the state and its ability to control, and to build a new establishment. For this purpose, we have to act outside the tools of the establishment we aim to overthrow.”

As for achieving the desired goal, “Individuals rise and act, promoting things gradually. As people see that it is possible, that there is a chance, they join.” They explain that “the idea of the rebellion is very simple. The State of Israel has many ‘weak spots’ . . . What we will do is simply ‘ignite’ all these explosive barrels—all the questions and contradictions between Judaism and democracy, between the Jewish and the secular communities, without fear of the results. Undermining the ability to govern in the country is the essence of the rebellion: to disrupt the tools and the entire status quo. Ultimately, the goal is to undermine the foundations of the state to the point where Jews must decide whether they want the revolution or the suppression of the rebellion, because ignoring it, or simply ‘sitting back and doing nothing,’ will no longer be feasible as the rebellion will disrupt the state’s status quo.”

To Rebellion—2

The document begins by going beyond the presentation of things in the first document, stating the purpose of the second document: “To propose a ‘work plan’. . . is awakening from the ground, following a call for direction and setting a path.” The document aims to outline the desired process and explain the main expected stages. There are four such stages: First, information (or propaganda) and preparation stage, primarily involving the assimilation of the idea, recruitment and organization of “soldiers,” and preparation of the area and narrative for the rebellion; second, initial actions—the beginning of the percolation of the ideas into the area and giving existing and developing activities the image of a rebellion; third, the outbreak of the rebellion—the multiplicity of actions and the sensitivity of the issues in question reach the point where the initiative is in the hands of the activists and the government is constantly on the defensive. The public discourse treats the rebellion as an existing fact, the State of Israel is in a state of uncertainty, and the desire and demand for a Jewish State is spreading; Fourth, the decision—the establishment must decide between three alternatives: surrender and relinquish power, conduct a referendum, or finally suppress the rebellion, which would lead to a revolution.

Meir Ettinger and His Affiliation with the “To Rebellion” Documents

In March 2015, the court accepted the state’s request and approved an administrative order, valid for six months, issued by the Minister of Defense against Meir Ettinger. It was determined that his arrest was intended to curb his dangerous activities. Following the Shin Bet’s claim, which included allegations that Ettinger was seen as a leader among the outpost activists and was involved in a series of violent incidents against Palestinians and security forces personnel—both as a participant and as a coordinator—the state argued that the evidence gathered indicated that Ettinger was the head of the aforementioned secret organized group. He, along with several others, wrote and edited the two documents titled “To Rebellion—1” and “To Rebellion—2.” According to the State of Israel, Ettinger was the “driving force” behind the organized group, maintaining close ties with its operatives and inciting them to carry out terrorist operations. The Shin Bet highlighted “the grave danger posed by the organized group of which Ettinger is a member, especially evident in the documents “To Rebellion—1” and “To Rebellion—2,” which demonstrate the violent intentions of its members.”

The judge, having reviewed confidential information and Ettinger’s articles, which were disseminated in various ways, noted the risk posed by him and the organized group he led, deeming Ettinger a significant threat to the security of the state and public peace. He concluded that in the documents “To Rebellion—1” and “To Rebellion—2,” which were authored by Ettinger and served as a foundation for the organized group’s activities, it is stated that these actions require dedication and a willingness to pay a high personal price, potentially leading to bloodshed. The judge concluded from the documents and Ettinger’s articles that they were not solely his property but rather belonged to a limited number of people and that they were distributed among the activists of the organized group and others, as they contained incitements to carry out violent actions, in order to fulfill the goals of the group.

The Kingdom of Malice Document (2014)

“The Kingdom of Malice” document served, in the phrasing of the Shin Bet, as a “combat doctrine for the operational squads within the rebellion infrastructure.” This document complements the basic “To Rebellion—1” and “To Rebellion—2” documents. According to the Shin Bet, this document was seized in 2014 from a vehicle owned and used by operatives of the Hilltop Youth who are listed on the “soldiers” site of the rebellion infrastructure—like Moshe Orbach (see below).

The document provides a rationale for escalating actions, including arson of inhabited houses. It begins with the statement that “The kingdom in the Holy Land [the State of Israel], since its establishment, opposes everything beneficial to Israel and harmful to its enemies. Therefore, it reacts strongly to any act against Gentiles, such as puncturing their vehicles or setting their properties on fire.” The document criticizes the steps taken by the police to curtail even the most minor “price-tag” acts. These includes tree uprooting, puncturing of tires, and so forth.

Furthermore, and most important, the document describes with disturbing thoroughness methods for creating Molotov cocktails and engaging in other operational actions, specifying materials and procedures (I cite these quite extensively, in order to keep the original flavor of the text).

Regarding the arson of mosques: “Apparently, the process involves exploiting open doors or breaking windows or showcases . . . Often, it’s safer and easier to approach the target through orchards and open areas in the village than walking along a main road. When setting a house on fire, there are usually items like cupboards and sofas to ignite. In contrast, a mosque typically has a large carpet and sometimes a closet with Qur’an and carpets. It’s important to note that people start arriving at the mosque around four in the morning, so caution is necessary . . . On reaching the mosque, ensure the area is clear and everyone is asleep. Try opening doors quietly with gloves or checking windows. If you can’t open them, breaking a window is an option. Once inside, spray graffiti, then spread gasoline over the mosque’s interior, focusing on the coffin, carpets, and Qur’ans.”

The document further lists even more serious methods of operation: “Sometimes we get tired of damaging property . . . and want to set fire to houses with their occupants . . . In this case, we risk the accusations of both arson and attempted murder. We also encounter a direct confrontation with the occupants of the house, although they are usually more concerned with putting out the fire than chasing after us, and we also have the advantage of surprise. So, if—after understanding the risks and having experience in arson of all kinds, which is really important, especially when going for such heavy matters—you’ve decided that you’re going for it, just go ahead with the task.”

As for stone throwing, “the first requirement is to be masked so that no one can be recognized in any way. Often at intersections in Judea and Samaria in particular, and in the country in general, there are cameras, possibly hidden ones too. A victim or ‘disciple’ might identify or photograph the [stone] throwers and pass their descriptions to the police. Therefore, do yourself a favor—wear a mask.” The authors emphasize: “Stone throwing at vehicles on the road is considered a serious offense by law. It poses a risk to life on a transportation route, and the maximum penalty can reach up to 20 years in prison, though this is rare except in cases involving particularly harmful stones. If police, the army, or settlement security arrive, it is advisable to run away and disappear as quickly as possible. Constant vigilance is necessary to avoid their arrival (there have been incidents in the past involving rabbis who betrayed their group). If Arabs stop and start stone throwing, then a stone-throwing battle begins. It is preferable to continue the battle until the Arabs flee. However, one should always be cautious of security forces, as they typically arrest the Jews.”

As for the churches and monasteries, the document notes that “it is a well-known fact that they are considered alien and out of place in our holy and pure land… It is a commonly held belief that Christians attempt to convert every Jew. Sadly, many Jews, due to our numerous iniquities, convert to Christianity every year in the Holy Land, and the alien countries do not interfere at all. Therefore, ‘where there is no man, try to be a man.’ From now on, we will rise to burn this evil scourge from within us. Concerning monasteries and churches there are many scattered across the country. Unlike mosques, where people live and which sometimes have security cameras, churches and monasteries often have parked cars nearby that can be targeted, and the buildings themselves can be approached. Typically, churches contain more furniture, benches, cabinets, etc., making them easier to set ablaze, resulting in greater damage. These churches and monasteries are scattered all over the country. You can take a map and see wherever there is a cross marking, it indicates a church or a monastery; wherever there is a minaret marking, it indicates a mosque.”

As for targeting Arabs to deter them from various actions, the document directs: “first of all you need to know that you must be masked; secondly, bring iron bars about 60 cm long, which are comfortable to hold, and sometimes gloves . . . Two or more companies arrive, equipped with all of the above, when an action plan is already prepared in advance, and there is one who is the commander of the incident. A deputy is also possible, and of course it is important to have a precise retreat plan and a hiding place until all the police officers who come to inspect the incident and look for suspects are gone . . . You have to be careful not to kill, because that is already more complicated. It is advisable to arrive in a pleasant way, if possible in hiding, and when you get to a close distance, pull out the bars and do not be alarmed by stones . . . It is advisable to give blows toward the head, in order to cause loss of consciousness and continue light work. If you reach such a state of loss of consciousness, it is advisable to hit non-dangerous organs, such as breaking teeth, hands and feet, fingers, jaws, etc. If you see that the situation is getting complicated, that more Arabs or security forces are coming, or that Arabs run away to a place that is not so suitable for a battle from a tactical point of view, you can simply go back to normality quietly and not be tempted into squalid stone battles. In any case, after reaching a more or less desired result, it is advisable to go as quickly as possible to a hiding place as far away as possible.”

Moshe Orbach and His Affiliation with “The Kingdom of Malice” Document

Moshe Haim Orbach—a brother-in-law of Meir Ettinger—who was 25 years old at the time “The Kingdom of Malice” document was seized from his car, is originally from an ultra-Orthodox community in Bnei Brak. He was involved in establishing illegal outposts and subsequently removed from the territories by an administrative order from the Commander of the Central Command. The Shin Bet attributed to him the laying of the groundwork for the idea of “rebellion” in the country and saw him as someone who advocated an all-out war against not only Muslims but also Christians and other religions. Orbach was arrested in 2013 on suspicion of arson of a monastery in Latrun in the Ayalon Valley but was released, and the case against him was closed. His criminal record included four prior convictions, but apart from his imprisonment for the incident discussed here, he had not served long prison sentences.

Two years later, when the police searched a vehicle in relation to an incident of arson of a church (see below), he officers found many items, including a portable memory device with a file titled “The Kingdom of Malice” in the glove compartment. The file’s characteristics indicated that it was first saved on a computer registered to Moshe Orbach. Additionally, a written version of the document was found in the vehicle, closely resembling the electronic version.

The indictment charged Orbach with sedition, possession of publications inciting violence or terrorism, and possession of racist publications. It alleged that Orbach created the document using a computer, saved it on a portable device, kept it with him, and made changes to it over time until it was found in the vehicle specifically used by him. After lengthy hearings, the Court convicted Orbach, sentencing him to 24 months in prison and an additional six-month suspended sentence.

On appeal, the District Court recognized the gravity of the document, acknowledging that its potential damage, if distributed, would be immense. However, considering that it was not distributed, Orbach’s withdrawal from an appeal against the verdict (interpreted as a delayed assumption of responsibility), and his mother’s severe medical condition, the sentence was reduced to a 15-month prison term.

Epilogue

The Affiliated Parties

Ettinger informed me that he is unfamiliar with the “To Rebellion” documents and does not know whether they refer to Rabbi Yitzhak Ginzburg’s doctrine (as I personally concluded). He claimed that he only read the documents years later and was surprised by their content: “They didn’t seem dangerous, scary, or terror-inducing to me—they were within reasonable limits,” he observed.

The supposed meaning and impact of “The Kingdom of Malice” document, which Orbach held, are evident, even if we accept his lawyer’s claim that he did not author it. The document, as claimed by the court, “lives within its environment, likely to fall on attentive ears and lead to severe and serious violence against both property and people. The document has a strong potential to cause serious violence. When I asked his attorney if Orbach could have, at least potentially (knowing the guy personally), written such a complicated and detailed document, he answered in the affirmative.

Two Later Significant Events

Two much publicized events, attributed to the rebellion infrastructure, occurred in the summer of 2015. The first involved arson of a building in the complex of the Church of the Multiplication of the Loaves and Fish located in Tabgha, on the night of June 18. The Church is a vital Christian site in Israel and an important destination for thousands of Christian pilgrims worldwide. The Shin Bet concluded that “the terrorist attack and arson of the Church were based on a coherent concept.” Actually, “The Kingdom of Malice” document was found during the investigation of the arson of this very Church. According to the verdict, in July 2015, police officers, armed with an arrest warrant, arrived in one of the settlements to arrest a youngster suspected of arson of the Church. The officers decided to seize a vehicle registered in his name—the very one in which they found the notorious document.

The second was the terrorist attack that occurred in the Palestinian town of Duma, about 25 km southeast of Nablus, on July 31, 2015. The indictment against Orbach had been filed the day before the attack in Duma. This incident was the most severe and consequential for the “Hill Youth—Price Tag” phenomenon. Two Molotov cocktails were thrown at a house, resulting in the deaths of Saad and Riham Dawabsha and their toddler son Ali. Another family member, four-year-old Ahmed Dawabsha, was seriously injured and underwent lengthy rehabilitation. Hebrew inscriptions and a Star of David were found sprayed on the walls of the burnt house. The rebellion infrastructure was detailed in the June 2018 verdict against Amiram Ben Oliel and a minor, Elisha Odes, both involved in the Duma terrorist attack. The verdict began by acknowledging the Shin Bet investigators’ belief that the two defendants were part of this infrastructure. The court concluded that the series of terrorist attacks, including the one in Duma, as well as the arson of the entrance to the Abbey of the Dormition on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, were executed in the spirit of the rebellion infrastructure, posing a significant threat to life and property.