By Eyal Clyne, JNews Blog
Wednesday, 13 April, 2011 - 16:26
Yet again we hear of escalating violence between Israel and Gaza. Yet again I am filled with sadness and concern for the people living with hatred, fear and danger. It is as if the horror of two years ago had never occurred. What is so frustrating is that it is clear to both sides that the interests of neither side are served by this escalation. And yet both are participating in it.
In examining this paradox I want to consider why the Israelis, who have the upper hand in military and intelligence capabilities, persist in carrying out so-called “preventive” actions and targeted assassinations in the middle of a lull in the violence, even though this opens up a new cycle of violence with unpredictable consequences, that they themselves wish to avoid.
Initiation and pre-emption – in whose interest?
It is usually hard to uncover the sources of bloody cycles, to find out who shot first. This time, however, there is no mystery since Israel went to the trouble of announcing that the first military operation it initiated was meant to ‘pre-empt’ a future action by the other side. (This has happened repeatedly in the past). I believe that this claim is honestly made, since it is entirely consistent with Israel’s security doctrine (which I plan to examine in a second piece). Essentially this relies upon aspiring always to keep the initiative on the battlefield; to prepare for the worst; to take no risks.
The tragedy of the powerful can be explained very simply if we consider that Palestinians have no access to information or intelligence regarding military actions or arms acquisition on the part of the Israeli military. Their ability to initiate and ‘pre-empt’ Israel action is non-existent. In contrast, since Israel has access to excellent intelligence and enjoys absolute military, technological and economic superiority, it has constant opportunities to ‘pre-empt’ by taking the initiative. The temptation to initiate a pre-emptive strike is so great that abstention seems absurd.
While superior intelligence may be an advantage on the tactical level, it can be dangerous on the strategic level if it tempts the powerful side to act in ways that endanger its long term interests, by initiating new cycles of violence. The Palestinians, lacking any intelligence capabilities, have no information regarding the plans of Israeli policy-makers and would therefore be in no hurry to break the status quo.
So there is such a thing as too much intelligence, and taking too many ‘precautions’. As we have seen elsewhere, acting on the most pessimistic intelligence assessments based on minimal evidence, insisting blindly on taking what appears to be the safest route, can have horrific consequences.
Gaza, Iraq, Sinai – warning systems in overdrive
Some may insist that it is better to be safe than sorry. Well, yes, but not always. Everything has a cost, and asymmetry matters. Here’s another example of the consequences of intelligence overload and exaggerated precautions. Almost seven years ago, a terrorist attack was carried out in the Sinai peninsula in Egypt, in a resort which was – and still is – popular with Israelis. Thirty-four people were killed, including ten Israelis. In their determination to prevent a recurrence, Israeli intelligence bodies have issued warnings at least twice or three times a year alleging immediate, urgent, concrete and specific threats of terrorist attacks in the Sinai. The warnings, headlined in newspapers, radio, TV and on the internet, cry out ‘Leave Sinai now!’ They are usually published just before and during the main Jewish holidays, during which thousands of Israelis travel to the Sinai. The last one was issued just last week.
After numerous such warnings over the last decade, and no terrorist attack, each successive alert sounds more and more like ‘Wolf! Wolf!’. Tens of thousands of Israelis no longer register them at all and continue to visit the Sinai’s desert beaches and return safely home from a wonderful holiday. Not surprising considering that you are more likely to face a terrorist attack in an Israeli city than in the Sinai - but no one evacuates the cities over the Jewish holidays. However, tens of thousands of other Israelis – and Egyptians – do change their plans because of the warnings, damaging the Sinai economy, which is dependent on tourism, and destabilising relations with Egyptians living there. Inevitably, both action and inaction have serious political and personal consequences.
The truth is that the Israeli security apparatus prefers to issue a warning than to discover later that they should have. This is the famous IDF concept of ‘KASTAH’ - an acronym for ‘cover your back’. It’s better to warn of the worst than to be caught out being unprepared. But is this really helpful? Any amateur meteorologist can warn Israelis every summer morning that it’s best to be on the safe side and take an umbrella; and when people get caught in the rain in the middle of August one day s/he will finally be able to say ‘I told you so!’ (Editors’ note to the British reader: in Israel, rain in August is such a rare occurrence as to be laughable). Random success cannot define the quality of predictions. After all, even a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day.
Paranoid warnings and obsessive preparations take an enormous toll of Israelis’ quality of life. It is time for us to ask: Aren’t we actually losing out here? Is this ‘pre-emption’ really leading us to a safer place? Does breaking the calm by bombarding Gaza pay, when in fact we don’t want another escalation? And before regretting the past yet again, we should be thinking about the next stage too. Shouldn’t we let the second Flotilla reach Gaza this time (as we have repeatedly done in the past, without mishap)? And finally, does the siege of Gaza and its residents really contribute to our safety, or actually endanger it? And what quality of life can we Israelis hope for, if we inevitably always choose to be ‘on the safe side’?
Israeli lyricist Meir Goldberg wrote in the 1980s:
We are afraid of our own shadow / Clinging to house walls / Most of the time ashamed of our body / Digging shelters //
We flee a crazy party / Squeeze into rowing boats / Every land is a sinking ship / When shelters are dug //
We are a rare species / An odd bird / Dreams in the air / Head in the earth //
We cheat mostly ourselves / Not blind, but not looking / It’s unclear what we’ll leave behind / Other than a mountain of fears //
Eyal Clyne is an Israeli researcher of society in Israel-Palestine. He focuses on the conflict and other Israeli political issues. Some of the posts on his Hebrew blog appear also in English and elsewhere, and some of his pieces for JNews are also cross-posted with other sites.
This article may be reproduced on condition that JNews is cited as its source
In examining this paradox I want to consider why the Israelis, who have the upper hand in military and intelligence capabilities, persist in carrying out so-called “preventive” actions and targeted assassinations in the middle of a lull in the violence, even though this opens up a new cycle of violence with unpredictable consequences, that they themselves wish to avoid.
Initiation and pre-emption – in whose interest?
It is usually hard to uncover the sources of bloody cycles, to find out who shot first. This time, however, there is no mystery since Israel went to the trouble of announcing that the first military operation it initiated was meant to ‘pre-empt’ a future action by the other side. (This has happened repeatedly in the past). I believe that this claim is honestly made, since it is entirely consistent with Israel’s security doctrine (which I plan to examine in a second piece). Essentially this relies upon aspiring always to keep the initiative on the battlefield; to prepare for the worst; to take no risks.
The tragedy of the powerful can be explained very simply if we consider that Palestinians have no access to information or intelligence regarding military actions or arms acquisition on the part of the Israeli military. Their ability to initiate and ‘pre-empt’ Israel action is non-existent. In contrast, since Israel has access to excellent intelligence and enjoys absolute military, technological and economic superiority, it has constant opportunities to ‘pre-empt’ by taking the initiative. The temptation to initiate a pre-emptive strike is so great that abstention seems absurd.
While superior intelligence may be an advantage on the tactical level, it can be dangerous on the strategic level if it tempts the powerful side to act in ways that endanger its long term interests, by initiating new cycles of violence. The Palestinians, lacking any intelligence capabilities, have no information regarding the plans of Israeli policy-makers and would therefore be in no hurry to break the status quo.
So there is such a thing as too much intelligence, and taking too many ‘precautions’. As we have seen elsewhere, acting on the most pessimistic intelligence assessments based on minimal evidence, insisting blindly on taking what appears to be the safest route, can have horrific consequences.
Gaza, Iraq, Sinai – warning systems in overdrive
Some may insist that it is better to be safe than sorry. Well, yes, but not always. Everything has a cost, and asymmetry matters. Here’s another example of the consequences of intelligence overload and exaggerated precautions. Almost seven years ago, a terrorist attack was carried out in the Sinai peninsula in Egypt, in a resort which was – and still is – popular with Israelis. Thirty-four people were killed, including ten Israelis. In their determination to prevent a recurrence, Israeli intelligence bodies have issued warnings at least twice or three times a year alleging immediate, urgent, concrete and specific threats of terrorist attacks in the Sinai. The warnings, headlined in newspapers, radio, TV and on the internet, cry out ‘Leave Sinai now!’ They are usually published just before and during the main Jewish holidays, during which thousands of Israelis travel to the Sinai. The last one was issued just last week.
After numerous such warnings over the last decade, and no terrorist attack, each successive alert sounds more and more like ‘Wolf! Wolf!’. Tens of thousands of Israelis no longer register them at all and continue to visit the Sinai’s desert beaches and return safely home from a wonderful holiday. Not surprising considering that you are more likely to face a terrorist attack in an Israeli city than in the Sinai - but no one evacuates the cities over the Jewish holidays. However, tens of thousands of other Israelis – and Egyptians – do change their plans because of the warnings, damaging the Sinai economy, which is dependent on tourism, and destabilising relations with Egyptians living there. Inevitably, both action and inaction have serious political and personal consequences.
The truth is that the Israeli security apparatus prefers to issue a warning than to discover later that they should have. This is the famous IDF concept of ‘KASTAH’ - an acronym for ‘cover your back’. It’s better to warn of the worst than to be caught out being unprepared. But is this really helpful? Any amateur meteorologist can warn Israelis every summer morning that it’s best to be on the safe side and take an umbrella; and when people get caught in the rain in the middle of August one day s/he will finally be able to say ‘I told you so!’ (Editors’ note to the British reader: in Israel, rain in August is such a rare occurrence as to be laughable). Random success cannot define the quality of predictions. After all, even a broken clock shows the correct time twice a day.
Paranoid warnings and obsessive preparations take an enormous toll of Israelis’ quality of life. It is time for us to ask: Aren’t we actually losing out here? Is this ‘pre-emption’ really leading us to a safer place? Does breaking the calm by bombarding Gaza pay, when in fact we don’t want another escalation? And before regretting the past yet again, we should be thinking about the next stage too. Shouldn’t we let the second Flotilla reach Gaza this time (as we have repeatedly done in the past, without mishap)? And finally, does the siege of Gaza and its residents really contribute to our safety, or actually endanger it? And what quality of life can we Israelis hope for, if we inevitably always choose to be ‘on the safe side’?
Israeli lyricist Meir Goldberg wrote in the 1980s:
Eyal Clyne is an Israeli researcher of society in Israel-Palestine. He focuses on the conflict and other Israeli political issues. Some of the posts on his Hebrew blog appear also in English and elsewhere, and some of his pieces for JNews are also cross-posted with other sites.
This article may be reproduced on condition that JNews is cited as its source