Israel s National Security Doctrine Limmud Conference The

Israel’s National Security Doctrine Limmud Conference

The Strategy of Strategic Surprise Situational An event in which information was lacking, the information didn’t arrive in time or wasn’t properly analyzed Strategic Irrelevant 'interpretive conceptual system' in terms of understanding the individual relative to his environment In order to deal with these situations, one needs to undergo fundamental learning / change one’s personal perception (Mindset)

The Process of Strategic Surprise Stage 4: Fundamental Learning Change in priorities and values Strategi c Surprise Stage 3: Denial Strategi c Surprise Stage 2: Incubation Strategic Surprise Situational (Technical) response to Fundamental (Adaptive) Problem Difference that makes the difference Copying without translating New trend in the neighborhood? Stage 1: Relevancy Gap

The Israeli Context Short, Unstable Tenures Complex Challenges Fragmentation of Knesset and Government Volatile Environment Incentive for Short Term Thinking Need for Substantive Broad Long Term View Address for Decision Makers Training Future Strategists Model to Emulate

Strategic Surprise in Israel’s National Security Strategi c Surprise Stage 3: Denial Strategi c Surprise Stage 2: Incubation Stage 1: Relevancy Strategi c Surprise Relevancy Gap האיום הקיומי הוא פיזי הזירה המרכזית: צבאית צה"ל הגורם העיקרי

Israel’s National Security Mindset Pol Dip Challenge London Conference White Paper 1939 Legitimacy for Jewish homeland Facilitating Jewish Aliya Organizing logic Politicaldiplomatic arena Militarysecurity arena It doesn’t matter what the goyim say. It matters what the Jews do (Ben Gurion) Military vs. Security Activism Ben Gurion’s Seminar Partition Plan: Arabs threaten to invade Sec. Doctrine: IL win war Alliance with Superpower (France / US) Alliance of Periphery 1933 1939 1947 1960 1970 Time 1980 1990 ~2000

Israel’s Traditional Security Doctrine List of Threats Main Working Assumptions Conventional: Army Existential Threat: Physical Terror / Guerilla Main Arena: Military Security Nuclear IDF protect the nation Deterrence Early Warning Decisive Victory So enemy won’t initiate war To prepare forces Over enemy Strategic Early Warning Closeness to Superpower Ambiguous Nuclear Policy Home-Front Role Secondary Force planning: Tanks and Planes Large Army relative to population rel ev an cy Creating an Iron Wall Quick Decisive Victory High quality intelligence agencies 1970 1980 Keeping strong army w/o economic collapse Army responsible for home front 1960 Striving for short wars Special relations with USA Taking war onto enemy’s territory 1990 Time Controlling territory main leverage

Updates to Israel’s Security Doctrine Meridor Commission: Defence Low intensity conflict The Dahiya Doctrine Guiding Assumptions of Nat Sec unchanged Arena: Military IDF responsible

Divergent Reality: The Resistance Network Base: Middle East not Nasrallah: “We do Abu Mussa Marzouk: “failure of need tanks and Characteristics: Islamist (Iran, Hamas, the Hezbollah) political process will planes… [Israel] is bring about the weaker than spider Main Strategy: a. Undermine 2 SS / ‘Logic of Implosion’ destruction of Israel web. ” (7/31/06) (5/15/07) Main Tactics: Asymmetrical Warfare, ‘overstretch’ IDF responsible for protecting nation Main Arena: Security Deterrence, Early Warning, Decisive Victory Existential Threat Military Superiority Synchronized Victories: Need strong foreign affairs establishment New non conventional tactics required. Home Front + Diplomatic also essential Resistance Network focuses on soft underbelly – asymmetric warfare, international arena and home front

Divergent Reality: Strategic A-Symmetry Flat network based structure Hierarchical top-down structure Permanent Resistance Finality of claims / Peace Low intensity / Attrition / Implosion High intensity / Victory Attack civilians / Human shields No civilian casualties IL Arabs = Strategic leverage IL Arabs = domestic issue Battleground: Home front & intl. arena Battleground: Military field Control over PL = Strategic Asset Control over PL = Military Necessity Authority w/o responsibility Authority with responsibility

Divergent Reality: Delegitimization Network Base: Europe & North America Characteristics: Red-Green Alliance, global spread, focused around hubs & catalysts Main Strategy: Promote 1 SS / turn IL into pariah state Main Tactics: BDS, lawfare, apartheid parallels The key: Blur difference between delegitimizers & critics Liberalising the arguments Essentialism Demonization: IL= apartheid Coercion only way: BDS Lawfare Double standards / singling out Red Green Liberal Elite: From Kibbutz to Kibbush

The Feedback Loop Flotilla planned for 16 months in countries Delegitimization Network friendly to IL Resistance Network Hamas drew upon Europe-based Muslim Brotherhood network Fundamental Delegit Advance 1 SS narrative Implosion threat Undermine 2 SS The Flotilla represents an evolved stage in the two networks’ coordination

Crisis in Israel’s National Security Attacks on Israel are nothing new Israel’s position vis-à-vis Western Govts remains stable Main Problem: Hasbara / Policy New dynamic – new threat (advancing 1 SS) Increasing threat from Liberal Progressive Elite Commitment to peace & HR vital – but there will always be an outstanding issue (Shebaa Farms Syndrome): Hasbara important but delegitimization is ideology driven

Creation of Existential Political Threat De-Legitimacy Demonization 3 rd World Pact Bottom Up Processes Change in Balance of Power US: Asset to Liability? Danger: Turning Into Pariah State Intl Inversion towards 2 SS