The 2025 World Summit on Counter-Terrorism which will be held September 15-18, Reichman University, Herzliya has created a furor in the international community.
Taking place in an organized form only 80 kilometers off the war-torn Gaza Strip, the event welcomes more than 1,400 representatives of 65 countries, such as defense officials, security agencies, and scholars. Against the background of the military offensive by Israel, both the timing and message of the summit are facing criticism as promoting counter-terrorism policy in the absence of humanitarian realities.
Institutional Overlap Between Academia And Israeli Security
The counter-terrorism infrastructure in Israel is closely linked with the academic institutions, and it is particularly in relation to this summit.
The host of the event, the International Institute of Counter-Terrorism (ICT), Reichman University, is indicative of the increasing overlap in education, intelligence and state defense strategy within Israeli national security strategy.
Strong Affiliations With Military And Intelligence Figures
The ICT leadership is mainly constituted of those individuals whose active or former service was in the military and intelligence services of Israel.
The directors, for example, Eitan Azani, are a former IDF colonel and the board chairman, Shabtai Shavit, is a former Mossad chief. Most of the other participants in the summit have a history of operations that have been criticized internationally especially those concerning Gaza.
Influence On The Summit’s Agenda And Perception
Such an institutional order forms the message of the summit, supporting a particular model of counter-terrorism that follows the policy of the Israeli state very well.
The incorporation of operational personalities instead of autonomous experts has made critics doubt whether the summit is a neutral platform or a state-based platform which exudes authority to legitimize its security activities.
Timing And Context Fuel Humanitarian Criticism
The timing of the summit is against a so-called humanitarian disaster in Gaza by world watchers. The intersection of the high-level security discourse with active military conflict makes the event perception of human rights organizations and citizens more complex.
Escalation Of Violence In Gaza During The Summit
Gaza is today undergoing massive destruction as Israeli bombs ravage the area with UN reports of starvation, displacement and destruction of infrastructure.
Conducting an international counter-terrorism summit in such a location sends, as many claim, a disturbing message that security innovation is being praised as human rights are falling near the ground.
Risks Of Moral Complicity And International Backlash
The summit has been criticized by more than 50 civil society organizations which have called on the withdrawal of participation.
There are also those organizations like the MENA Rights Group and Human Rights Watch that view the attendance as an actual endorsement of the current activities of Israel in Gaza, and that this can jeopardize the overall diplomatic standing.
Security Framing Versus Legal And Ethical Obligations
The peak is an indication of a more general conflict in international politics as to whether counter-terrorism activity can be pursued without taking into consideration state violence and civilian protection.
In this regard, critics suggest that the summit propounds one sided narrative which justifies the deployment of disproportionate force in the guise of self defense.
Promoting Israel As A Model Of Counter-Terrorism
The summit focuses on Israeli technological and operational capability through workshops and panel sessions.
However, these methods including predictive border control, targeted killings and many others have been developed out of a battle zone and this makes it questionable when militarized methods are exported to other parts of the world with no legal and moral protections.
Avoiding Civilian Protection Discussions
Another glaring gap in the summit is any concentrated discussion as to the protection of civilians amid counter-terrorism operations.
This lack is specifically critical in the light of the humanitarian cost of the current Israeli military action, and it strengthens the fears that the summit justifies those actions which are considered by many as the breach of international law.
Polarization And Loss Of Common Counter-Terrorism Vision
The summit shows increasing points of divergence in the ways nations and organizations articulate counter-terrorism objectives and seek them. Such increasing fragmentation might undermine international collaboration and diminish the efficiency of global responses to security threats which are changing.
Diverging Paths In Global Security Policy
Whereas Israel casts its practice as a practice of necessary action to existential threats, other countries are calling on the establishment of a balance between security and diplomacy and rights.
This schism is evidenced by the absence of the voice of various international entities at the summit where major organizations refuse to support its structure.
Institutional Trust And Strategic Coherence
International counter-terrorism organizations such as Interpol and the UN Counter-Terrorism Office are becoming increasingly challenged by the need to keep the members on track.
Such summits, with their unilateral articulation, run the risk of isolating important partners and making the process of formulating concerted strategies in the global counter-terrorism complex.
This individual has addressed the subject, highlighting the legal and ethical concerns regarding such forums and the consequences of such forums on world legitimacy:
Their statements indicate that the global counter-terrorism community should not be excessively left to associate the security speech with one-sided accounts.
Stakes Of Global Legitimacy And Diplomatic Credibility
The Israeli counter-terrorism summit has ceased to be a summit on security policy; it has now become a symbol of the greater battle between state-based security concerns and international humanitarian imperatives.
As the war in Gaza escalates, the arrival of foreign representatives can be taken as a sign of implicit acceptance of Israeli practices, complicating the diplomatic affairs and causing uncertainty in the further multilateral cooperation.
The decisions of the governments and institutions that will be present in this event have wider implications rather than in a normal conference. They can determine the way future security forums are built as either being inclusive institutions based on international law, or national exhibitions disguised as a world operation.
The summit has revealed the fragility of the international counter-terrorism agreement and poses the fundamental issue as to whether justice and security can still be sought hand in hand. The way ahead lies in whether worldwide bodies are capable of tackling not merely terrorism, but the frameworks that give life to violence in its name.
