From the Web to the Street: Why Does Israel Struggle to Curb Youth Violence?

About the Monitor

The "Monitor" section of Globes and the "Center for Citizen Empowerment" provides the public with civil monitoring of the implementation, or non-implementation, of government decisions and legislation, and is based on the work of the Center's researchers and the Globes editorial staff. The Center for Citizen Empowerment (CECI) is a non-profit organization operating since 2003 and dealing with the performance capabilities of the public sector. The section is published every two weeks.

Writing: Michal Ben Moshe

For sources and methodology, search for "Monitor" on the Globes website and the Center for Citizen Empowerment website: www.ceci.org.il

How We Checked

The Center for Citizen Empowerment is a civil society organization working to increase performance capacity in the public sector and strengthen trust between the government and citizens. The "Monitor" project is the central means for this goal.

"Monitor" tracks and monitors the implementation of government decisions, in light of the values of Accountability and transparency, with the aim of improving the government's work in Israel, pointing out the gap between the declaration and the setting of government policy and its actual execution. In addition to presenting an up-to-date implementation picture of all operational decision clauses, the Monitor's researchers, who undergo comprehensive training, analyze the barriers and enablers in each decision, that is - what were the reasons and conditions that contributed to the execution or non-execution of the various decision clauses.

The investigation is carried out by reading open sources such as protocols, the legislation database, government reports, State Comptroller reports, etc. After exhausting the primary sources, an inquiry is made to the professionals in the government, and in some cases, consultations are held with other relevant actors such as civil society bodies, policy subjects, and more.

The Monitor report includes reference to the background, circumstances, and public climate surrounding the decision-making, presentation of the implementation status of its various clauses, analysis of enablers and barriers, summary and integration of the information, as well as recommendations for streamlining processes and removing barriers.

How are government decisions chosen for monitoring?

1. Decisions on social and economic issues, chosen after discussion and mapping with government officials, academia, and civil society.

2. Operational government decisions - implementation decisions.

3. Strategic decisions - high budget or extensive impact on Israeli citizens.

4. Complex government decisions - having the potential for implementation barriers due to the involvement of several government ministries, a long process, etc.

5. Mature decisions - at least a year has passed since they were accepted by the government.

Criteria for measuring the implementation of decision clauses

Government decisions include executive clauses of various types - legislative changes, budgeting, establishing committees, performing staff work, etc. The Monitor report brings the implementation status of each of the decision clauses - implemented, not implemented, or partially implemented (for example - in a case where a budget was allocated but not utilized).

Analysis of barriers and enablers

The Center for Citizen Empowerment performed an analysis and data processing of more than 100 Monitor reports into a quantitative study that allows a macro view of the government's ability to implement its decisions and commitments to the public. The analysis revealed 13 enablers and 11 barriers on the way to implementing government decisions. Examples of barriers - lack of a binding schedule, difficulty in executing contracts, lack of inter-ministerial coordination, etc. Examples of enablers - a coordinating team, an external audit mechanism, definition of outcome measures, etc.

The analysis of enablers and barriers helps to get a broad, data-based picture of how the government works, and to produce recommendations to build more applicable and effective government decisions for the benefit of the public in Israel.

In recent years, youth violence in Israel has turned from a disturbing phenomenon into a crisis that undermines the sense of security in the community, at school, and on the web. The murder of Binyamin Zalka (of blessed memory) in Petah Tikva, in which minors were involved, illustrated the depth of the change: no longer just isolated incidents, but patterns of group violence, increasing use of cold weapons, a decrease in the age of those involved, and a tight connection between the physical arena and the digital arena.

Zalka's murder brought the Knesset to re-engage with the issue - the Education Committee and the Committee for the Rights of the Child declared the phenomenon a "national crisis". This creates an opportunity to examine the sequence of government and local policy built in Israel over the last two decades: from the "City Without Violence" program, through the establishment of the National Authority for Community Safety and the 360 program for children and youth at risk, to the 105 center for protecting children on the web. The central question is why, despite the multitude of tools, the gap between policy and reality on the ground is still widening.

---

The dangerous unity of the web and street arenas

The most prominent arena is the web. Teenagers spend long hours in front of screens, are exposed early to smartphones, and operate in an environment that creates a sense of anonymity and weakens inhibitions. Social networks amplify boycotts, shaming, and "herd phenomenon", and artificial intelligence tools add a new layer of risk: about a quarter of teenagers report that they have been exposed to offensive content created using AI.

But the violence does not stay on the web. It also appears in neighborhoods, parks, beaches, and schools - especially in middle schools, which the Ministry of Education defined as the "soft underbelly" of the system. Exposure to community violence is particularly high among teenagers from Arab society and can lead to post-trauma, anxiety, depression, and behavioral problems.

The connection between these arenas is what makes dealing with it difficult. When the same phenomenon occurs simultaneously at school, in the public space, and on the web, the division of responsibility between the treating parties also becomes more complex. The Ministry of Education is required to deal with expressions of violence within educational institutions, local authorities with community safety in the urban space, and the police and the 105 center with incidents, some of which are criminal and some of which are in the gray area between social harm and an offense. Therefore, even when there are solutions in each of the arenas, the question is how connected they are to each other.

Over two decades of "City Without Violence"

The state is not starting from scratch. Already in 2004, the "City Without Violence" program was launched in Eilat, which was later expanded to more than 150 authorities. The program combined safety instructors in schools, cameras and municipal centers, municipal policing, illuminated courts, parent patrols, and locating youth at risk. According to the monitoring of the Center for Citizen Empowerment, this was a relatively effective implementation mechanism: the government transferred budgets, and the local authorities translated them into actions on the ground.

Since then, the program no longer operates as an independent entity. In 2017-2018, "City Without Violence", the Authority for the War on Drugs and Alcohol, and the "Mitzila" division were merged into the National Authority for Community Safety. The goal was to reduce duplication and create one address for dealing with violence, crime, and addictions in the local authority. In practice, in some authorities, the old name still appears on patrol cars and signs, but the management and budgeting are subject to the unified authority.

The merger into the National Authority for Community Safety was supposed to provide an answer to exactly this problem: a multitude of programs, bodies, and names that operated in parallel. Instead of separate systems for violence, drugs, alcohol, and community prevention, one framework was created that is supposed to see the totality of risks in the community. But the merger itself does not guarantee uniform implementation. The fact that in some authorities they still use the old name of "City Without Violence" illustrates the gap between the structural change at the government level and the way the policy is identified and operated on the ground.

Alongside this, the 360 program for children and youth at risk operates, whose goal is to prevent risk situations in the family and community. It operates in more than 185 authorities and neighborhoods, mainly in disadvantaged areas, with an annual budget of about 220 million shekels. Its model is based on inter-ministerial work, transferring responsibility to local authorities, and using a data system to track children and their parents.

One of the projects operating within it is "Connecting to Youth on the Beaches": complexes for locating and assisting teenagers during the summer vacation, around the use of alcohol and drugs, social pressure, sexual abuse, and violence. At an event marking 18 years of the program in July 2026, Prof. Hillel Schmid warned that the corona, the war, and the social crises created challenges among child and youth populations "that we did not know before" - and therefore professional tools also need to change.

The center that remained to deal with the jump in inquiries

In the online arena, the 105 center operates, the operational arm of the National Headquarters for the Protection of Children on the Web. The center combines police officers from unit 105 in Lahav 433 with a desk of civilian experts from five government ministries, and handles both criminal incidents and cases that do not necessarily cross the criminal threshold - such as boycotts, shaming, and cyberbullying.

In 2025, 16,292 incidents were opened at the center - an increase of about 71% compared to 2024. At the headquarters, they attribute this both to the rise in public awareness and to the escalation in offensive discourse on the networks. But facing this jump are limited resources: a regular shift is manned by only six police officers, and on weekends by two. The alternative enforcement team in the State Attorney's Office, which is responsible for demands to remove offensive content, also operates with a limited staff.

The issue of manpower at the center also illustrates the gap between the scope of the task and the operational ability. A 71% increase in the number of incidents in one year is a significant indication of the load, whether its source is higher public awareness or an escalation in offensive discourse. When a regular shift relies on only six police officers, and on weekends on two, it is difficult to assume that the system is capable of providing a full response to all inquiries at the same rate at which the harms occur and are distributed.

The toolbox is scattered between ministries and authorities

Thus, the problem is not a total lack of policy but a gap between existing tools and the needs on the ground. The solutions are scattered between ministries and authorities, some of them have been eroded budget-wise, and others struggle to adapt themselves to a reality in which youth violence occurs simultaneously at school, on the street, and on the web.

1. The first barrier is budgetary. The budgets of the 360 program and the rates transferred to the authorities have not been updated for about 15 years, despite price increases and population growth. At the same time, the budget of the youth movements - a central prevention factor - was cut by 50%. The result is uncertainty that makes therapeutic continuity and the operation of patrols and prevention programs difficult.

2. The second barrier is manpower. A shortage of psychologists, social workers, mental health professionals, and frameworks for dropout youth harms both prevention and treatment. To this is added understaffing in the 105 center and the State Attorney's Office, precisely when the volume of inquiries is skyrocketing.

3. The third barrier is coordination. In the Knesset, they demand a comprehensive and budgeted national program, while the Ministry of Welfare prefers to expand the 360 infrastructure instead of establishing a new framework. Also, in front of the local authorities, implementation gaps are discovered: authorities that met the criteria for budgeting technological systems did not always realize it, partly due to internal barriers. At the same time, issues like placing cameras have been stuck in the past due to legal disputes around privacy.

Above all, a legal barrier also hovers. Criminal law struggles to deal with online violence of minors, where it is sometimes difficult to prove criminal intent, social pressure plays a central role, and the harm spreads quickly. The fighting events and national trauma of recent years have exacerbated the challenge: they diverted attention and resources, and at the same time created conditions that increase risk among children and youth.

What can be done? The Center's recommendations

1. Strategic decision, preventing duplication and coordination: The government is required to decide on the coordinating mechanism to prevent the creation of parallel frameworks. It is recommended to examine the expansion of the 360 program to all socio-economic measures while updating its budgets that have been eroded, in cooperation with the headquarters of the Authority for Community Safety.

2. Improving partnership with local government: It is necessary to thicken the support and accompaniment system for weak local authorities that do not succeed in realizing budget authorizations (for example on the subject of technological systems) due to internal implementation barriers.

3. Holistic approach adapted to the target audience: Treatment cannot rely on enforcement only due to a lack of legal adaptation. It is necessary to focus on re-education for digital literacy and critical thinking in the face of AI dangers, and to involve parents deeply and actively - who are the preferred party for teenagers for reporting and receiving support in times of distress. Work on building resilience and strengthening family and environmental support were found to significantly moderate the development of post-trauma among youth exposed to violence.

4. Building programs and thickening dedicated manpower in the education system: A demand for a standard educational counselor position in every school, as well as full staffing of the psychological services system in the education system. This is alongside promoting programs to raise the awareness of children, youth, and the educational staff to offensive behavior that may escalate into violence during school hours and beyond them.

5. Examining regulation on the use of children and teenagers in social networks: Creating a regulatory policy that imposes part of the responsibility on large technology organizations through legislation that will oblige social networks to remove offensive content, filter content, and not remain at the level of voluntary procedure. This is while adapting the rules of use in Israel to the international trend - to raise the minimum age of use in social networks, for example - age 16 in Australia and soon also in Spain.

6. Updating the required legislation: In order to deal with the challenges of violence on the web that characterize the period. For example - through legislation to criminalize distributors of offensive materials, similar to what exists in the USA.