Israel’s National Security Doctrine

Limmud Conference

The Strategy of Strategic Surprise

Situational Strategic

In order to deal with these situations, one needs to undergo fundamental learning / change one’s personal perception (Mindset)

Irrelevant 'interpretive conceptual system' in

terms of understanding the individual relative to

his environment

An event in which information was

lacking, the information didn’t arrive in time or wasn’t properly

analyzed

The Process of Strategic Surprise

Stage 1: Relevancy

Stage 2: Incubation

Stage 3: Denial

Stage 4: Fundamental

Learning

Strategic

Surprise

Relevancy Gap

Strategic

Surprise

Strategic

Surprise

Copying without translating

Difference that makes the difference

New trend in the neighborhood?

Situational (Technical) response to

Fundamental (Adaptive) Problem

Change in priorities and

values

Complex Challenges

Volatile Environment

Need for Substantive Broad Long Term View

Short, Unstable Tenures

Fragmentation of Knesset and Government

Incentive for Short Term Thinking

Address for Decision Makers Model to Emulate

Training Future Strategists

The Israeli Context

Strategic Surprise in Israel’s National Security

Strategic

Surprise

Relevancy Gap

Strategic

Surprise

Strategic

Surprise

הזירה המרכזית: צבאית

האיום הקיומי הוא פיזי

צה"ל הגורם העיקרי

Stage 1: Relevancy

Stage 2: Incubation

Stage 3: Denial

Time

Org

an

izin

g

log

ic

1947 2000~1933 1939

Political-diplomatic arena

Military-security arena

1960 1970 1980 1990

It doesn’t matter what the goyim say. It matters what the Jews do

(Ben Gurion)

Legitimacy for Jewish homeland

Facilitating Jewish Aliya

Pol Dip ChallengeLondon

ConferenceWhite Paper 1939

Partition Plan: Arabs threaten to

invade

Ben Gurion’s Seminar

Israel’s National Security Mindset

Sec. Doctrine: IL win war

Military vs. Security Activism

Alliance with Superpower (France / US)

Alliance of Periphery

1960 1970 1980 1990

rele

van

cy

Israel’s Traditional Security Doctrine

List of Threats

Conventional: Army

Terror / Guerilla

Main Working Assumptions

Nuclear

Main Arena: Military Security

Existential Threat: Physical

IDF protect the nation

Decisive Victory

Over enemy

Early Warning

To prepare forces

Deterrence

So enemy won’t initiate war

Time

Quick Decisive Victory

Large Army relative

to population

Home-Front Role Secondary

Force planning: Tanks and Planes

Strategic Early Warning

Ambiguous Nuclear Policy

Closeness to Superpower

Striving for short wars

Keeping strong army w/o economic collapse

Army responsible for home front

High quality intelligence agencies

Special relations with USA

Taking war onto enemy’s territory

Controlling territory main leverage

Creating an Iron Wall

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

Existential Threat Military

Main Arena: Security Deterrence, Early Warning, Decisive

Victory

IDF responsible for protecting nation

Nasrallah: “We do not need tanks and planes…

[Israel] is weaker than a spider

web.” (7/31/06)

Abu Mussa Marzouk:

“failure of the political process will bring about

the destruction of Israel (5/15/07)

New non conventional tactics required.

Home Front + Diplomatic also essential

Synchronized Victories:Need strong foreign affairs

establishment

Resistance Network focuses on soft underbelly – asymmetric warfare,

international arena and home front

Base: Middle East

Main Strategy: Undermine 2SS / ‘Logic of Implosion’Main Tactics: Asymmetrical Warfare, ‘overstretch’

Characteristics: Islamist (Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah)

Military Superiority

Divergent Reality: Strategic A-Symmetry

Flat network based structure Hierarchical top-down structure

Permanent ResistanceFinality of claims / Peace

Low intensity / Attrition / ImplosionHigh intensity / Victory

Attack civilians / Human shieldsNo civilian casualties

IL Arabs = Strategic leverageIL Arabs = domestic issue

Battleground: Home front & intl. arena

Battleground: Military field

Control over PL = Strategic AssetControl over PL = Military Necessity

Authority w/o responsibilityAuthority with responsibility

Divergent Reality: Delegitimization Network

Base: Europe & North America

Main Strategy: Promote 1SS / turn IL into pariah state Main Tactics: BDS, lawfare, apartheid parallels

Characteristics: Red-Green Alliance, global spread, focused around hubs & catalysts

The key: Blur difference between delegitimizers &

critics

Coercion only way: BDS

EssentialismLiberalising the arguments

Demonization: IL= apartheid

Double standards / singling out

Lawfare

Red GreenLiberal Elite:

From Kibbutz to Kibbush

The Feedback Loop

Resistance NetworkDelegitimization Network

Undermine2SS

Advance 1SS narrative

Implosion threat Fundamental Delegit

Flotilla planned for 16 months in countries friendly to IL

Hamas drew upon Europe-based Muslim Brotherhood network

The Flotilla represents an evolved stage in the two networks’

coordination

Crisis in Israel’s National Security

Main Problem: Hasbara / Policy

Commitment to peace & HR vital – but there will always be an outstanding issue (Shebaa Farms Syndrome): Hasbara important but delegitimization is ideology driven

Increasing threat from Liberal Progressive Elite

Israel’s position vis-à-vis Western Govts remains

stable

New dynamic – new threat (advancing 1SS)

Attacks on Israel are nothing new

Creation of Existential Political Threat

Danger: Turning Into Pariah State

Demonization

De-Legitimacy

3rd World Pact

Change in Balance of Power

US: Asset to Liability?

Bottom Up Processes

Intl Inversion towards 2SS