RSS
Hamas Massacre and Gaza War Shows Technological Superiority Can’t Bring Peace
An Israeli soldier stands guard at moshav Netiv HaAsara which borders the Gaza Strip, in the aftermath of the deadly October 7 attack by terrorists from Palestinian Islamist antisemitic terror group Hamas, in southern Israel, November 19, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
Throughout the nearly two decades since the disengagement from Gaza, Israel has found itself embroiled in a protracted violent struggle against Hamas (which is supported by another terrorist organization based in the Gaza Strip — Palestinians Islamic Jihad).
Hamas has consistently focused its efforts on terrorizing Israeli civilians. For those living near the Gaza Strip in the area known as the “Gaza Envelope,” life has been unbearable for many years. Israel always responded to Hamas’ terror attacks on those communities with limited force, without ever achieving a decisive resolution.
Over the years, there have been 16 military operations or rounds of conflict in Gaza, averaging about one per year. In each case, the technological capabilities employed by the IDF became more advanced and sophisticated.
Iron Dome, an advanced short-range missile defense system developed in Israel, was put into operation in 2011 and has been highly successful at intercepting Hamas’ rockets. In 2021, the construction of a sophisticated technological barrier was completed that stretched approximately 65 kilometers along the entire length of the Gaza Strip. Israel invested three years and 3.5 billion shekels in this barrier, which was one of the most complex and advanced engineering projects ever conducted in the country. It involved a complex underground barrier with advanced sensing systems, an above-ground technological barrier with surveillance technologies, remote-controlled weapons systems integrated into an advanced detection system, maximum coverage cameras for the area, and command-and-control war rooms.
Yet on the morning of October 7, 2023, Hamas launched a massive, highly successful murderous attack on the southern IDF army bases and settlements bordering the Gaza Strip.
Using basic means of communication, such as handwritten messages and person-to-person oral contact, Hamas leadership managed to handle the entire operation’s communication channels and avoid early detection by Israel. By using simple measures, they successfully disrupted the advanced technological systems responsible for on-site detection and prevention, followed by partial interference with the IDF’s communication systems. These successes led to a mass infiltration by a large number of terrorists into the settlements and military bases, resulting in an unprecedented number of dead, injured, and hostages taken, including both civilians and IDF personnel.
The perception that technology alone can lead to military dominance reached its peak in the early 1990s with the emergence of the “Revolution in Military Affairs” (RMA) concept. This idea posits that military superiority relies on advanced technological solutions to address a wide range of threats and scenarios. It took root in American defense circles and influenced the strategies of several Western armies, including Israel’s.
From its inception, Israel has emphasized the acquisition of technological superiority as a means of countering numerical inferiority. Over the years, this strategy has become a cornerstone of Israel’s identity as a technologically advanced nation, earning it the nickname “Start-Up Nation.” It significantly affected Israel’s national security perception and its military. This perception is well reflected in the country’s innovative defense industry and the high number of Israeli technology start-ups in the defense sector.
One of the ultimate goals of advanced technological defense systems is to provide a real-time, comprehensive operational picture of the battlefield at any given moment. Efforts to achieve this goal involve the development of means that can “see” through walls or underground, advanced sensing systems capable of providing continuous battlefield coverage around the clock, improved data compression techniques, and more efficient transmission methods for large volumes of data. Additionally, it includes the utilization of artificial intelligence to assist in rapid decision-making, based on the large volume of data collected.
However, no matter how advanced technology becomes, it is highly unlikely to completely eliminate the “fog of war.” Moreover, the increasing reliance of advanced armies on technological systems creates a certain vulnerability. Alongside the advancement of information technology in recent decades, more significant points of weakness have become apparent. The most advanced tracking systems can be countered by simple measures, such as drones and explosive devices. Highly advanced sensors have limited capability to provide information about what is happening in underground bunkers and tunnels. Urban areas pose particular challenges as they contain large numbers of people and structures that all represent potential targets for tracking. In addition, there is the significant problem of the difficulty in distinguishing between non-combatants and adversaries.
A successful attack on Israel’s military information and communication networks can blind and silence its forces for significant periods, as indeed happened on October 7. The events of that day were the result of those limitations and serve as proof that even a modern military, armed with state-of-the-art equipment and technology, can be caught completely off-guard.
The conclusion of World War II heralded a change in the landscape of violent conflict worldwide. This change is reflected in the ascendance of asymmetrical conflict involving non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations, much like the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Asymmetrical conflicts are characterized by a growing involvement of the civilian population and a blurring of distinctions between the frontlines and the home front. These conflicts are often limited in scope, and traditional notions of victory in war or total defeat of the enemy are no longer valid.
One of the major components of asymmetric conflict is access to military technology. The more economically developed a country, the more advanced its military technology. This reality is clearly seen in the balance of military power between Israel and Hamas. By directing attacks against non-combatant civilians, the side in the conflict that holds the technological disadvantage — Hamas — aims to cancel out the asymmetry. As Israel holds such a clear technological advantage, Hamas cannot compete in a technological arms race, and it does not try. Instead, it resorts to simple and less advanced means that make it much more challenging for Israel to use its technological advantage.
An excellent example is Hamas’ use of incendiary balloons and kites, which it started launching towards Israel in April 2018 and which caused severe fires in the communities near the Gaza Strip. These simple means of warfare frightened residents and stirred public anger towards the IDF, which struggled to cope with them. As part of this trend, Hamas also began using cheap, readily available civilian drones with a wide range of applications, including military purposes such as intelligence-gathering and the carrying of explosive charges. Hamas has used drones like the DJI Matrice 600, which is capable of carrying a payload up to six kilograms and which can reach a maximum speed of about 65 km/h.
The primary battlefield on which the State of Israel combats terrorist organizations such as Hamas is an extremely dense and populated urban area, rife with enemy units that constantly try to hide from the IDF’s advanced sensor networks. They seek to inflict damage and quickly disappear into shelters or underground bunkers and tunnels.
Although technological supremacy is, and will probably remain, an important element of the IDF’s modus operandi, recent years’ experience teaches that the key to winning the war against terrorist organizations that employ the tactics discussed above will likely require full control of the territory. Though some degree of control can be achieved by means of technology, full control demands a substantial, sometimes massive, presence of “boots on the ground” — as the United States learned in its campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. Even a technologically advanced military force will always remain vulnerable when facing such warfare, and it is unlikely that a miraculous technology will emerge to change that fundamental reality. Over-reliance on technology in conflicts of this nature can, in certain circumstances, act as a dangerous hindrance to achieving the desired outcome, as seen in the events of October 7, 2023.
Nir Reuven is a researcher at the BESA Center, an engineer, and a former officer in the Merkava development program (the main Israeli battle tank). He has held several management positions in the Israeli hi-tech industry and is an expert on technology. Currently he is co-manager of the Sapir College Innovation and Entrepreneurship Center and lectures at Bar-Ilan University. A version of this article was originally published by The BESA Center.
The post Hamas Massacre and Gaza War Shows Technological Superiority Can’t Bring Peace first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
McGill cancels talk with former Hamas insider turned Israel advocate, citing fears of violence
McGill University has canceled an on-campus event planned by Jewish students—and temporarily halted bookings for all extracurricular activities—following threats of violence along with a death threat, as outlined in a […]
The post McGill cancels talk with former Hamas insider turned Israel advocate, citing fears of violence appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
US Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Strip Funding From Universities That Boycott Israel
US Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) at a press conference in Bergenfield, New Jersey, US on June 5, 2023. Photo: Kyle Mazza/NurPhoto via Reuters Connect
US Reps. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) on Tuesday introduced bipartisan legislation to cut off federal funding from universities that engage in boycotts of Israel.
The legislation, titled “The Protect Economic Freedom Act,” would render universities that participate in the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel ineligible for federal funding under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, prohibiting them from receiving federal student aid. The bill would also mandate that colleges and universities submit evidence that they are not participating in commercial boycotts against the Jewish state.
“Enough is enough. Appeasing the antisemitic mobs on college campuses threatens the safety of Jewish students and faculty and it undermines the relationship between the US and one of our strongest allies. If an institution is going to capitulate to the BDS movement, there will be consequences — starting with the Protect Economic Freedom Act,” Foxx, chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said in a statement.
Gottheimer added that the legislation is necessary to thwart the surging tide of antisemitism on college campuses. Although the lawmaker noted that students are allowed to engage in free expression regarding the ongoing war in Gaza, he argued that blanket boycotts against Israel endanger the lives of Jewish students and community members.
“The goal of the antisemitic BDS movement is to annihilate the democratic State of Israel, America’s critical ally in the global fight against terror. While students and faculty are free to speak their minds and disagree on policy issues, we cannot allow antisemitism to run rampant and risk the safety and security of Jewish students, staff, faculty, and guests on college campuses,” Gottheimer said in a statement. “The new bipartisan Protect Economic Freedom Act will give the Department of Education a critical new tool to combat the antisemitic BDS movement on college campuses. Now more than ever, we must take the necessary steps to protect our Jewish community.”
The legislation instructs the US Department of Education to keep a record of universities that refuse to confirm their non-participation in anti-Israel boycotts. The list of universities in non-compliance with the legislation would be made publicly available.
In the year following the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s massacre acrosssouthern Israel, universities across the country have found themselves embroiled in controversies regarding campus antisemitism. In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Israel, hordes of students and faculty orchestrated protests and demonstrations condemning the Jewish state. Student groups at elite universities such as Harvard and Columbia issued statements blaming Israel for the attacks and expressing support for Hamas.
Several high-profile universities have also shown a significant level of tolerance for anti-Jewish sentiment festering on their campuses. Northwestern University, for example, capitulated to demands of anti-Israel activists to remove Sabra Hummus from campus dining halls because of its connections to Israel. At Stanford University, Jewish students have reported being forced to condemn Israel before being allowed to enter campus parties. Students at the University of Pennsylvania and Brown University launched unsuccessful attempts to convince the university to divest endowment funds from companies tied to Israel.
The post US Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Strip Funding From Universities That Boycott Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Harvard Chaplains Omit Antisemitism From Statement on Antisemitic Incident
Demonstrators take part in an “Emergency Rally: Stand With Palestinians Under Siege in Gaza,” amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, Oct. 14, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Harvard University’s Office of the Chaplain and Religious and Spiritual Life is being criticized by a rising Jewish civil rights activist for omitting any mention of antisemitism from a statement addressing antisemitic behavior.
The sharp words followed the office’s response to a hateful demonstration on campus in which pro-Hamas students stood outside Harvard Hillel and called for it to banned from campus. Such a demand is not new, as it began earlier this semester at the direction of the National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP) organization, which coordinates the lion’s share of anti-Zionist activity on college campuses.
As seen in footage of the demonstration, the students chanted “Zionists aren’t welcome here!” and held signs which accused the organization — the largest campus organization for Jewish students in the world — of embracing “war criminals” and genocide.
Addressing the behavior, Harvard Chaplains issued a statement, which is now being pointed to as a symbol of higher education’s indifference to the unique hatred of antisemitism, as well as its permutation as anti-Zionism.
“We have noticed a trend of expression in which entire groups of students are told they ‘are not welcome here’ because of their religious, cultural, ethnic, or political commitments and identities, or are targeted through acts of vandalism,” the office said, seemingly circumventing the matter at hand. “We find this trend disturbing and anathema to the dialogue and connection across lines of difference that must be a central value and practice of a pluralistic institution of higher learning.”
It continued, “Student groups who are singled out in this way experience such language and acts of vandalism as a painful attack that undermines the acceptance and flourishing of religious diversity here at Harvard. Let us all endeavor to care for one another in these divisive times.”
Recent Harvard graduate Shabbos Kestenbaum, who addressed the Republican National Convention in August to discuss the ways which progressive bias in higher education fosters anti-Zionism and anti-Western ideologies, described the statement as a moral failure in a post on X/Twitter on Tuesday.
“Disappointing,” he said. “After Harvard Jews were told by masked students ‘Zionists aren’t welcome here’ outside of the Hillel, the Chaplain Office finally released a statement that did not include the words Jew, Zionism, Israel, or antisemitism. A total abdication of religious responsibility.”
Kestenbaum noted in a later statement that Harvard’s chief diversity and inclusion officer, Sherri Ann Charleston, has so far declined to speak on the issue at all. He charged that when Charleston “isn’t plagiarizing, she and DEI normalize antisemitism,” referring to evidence, first reported by the Washington Free Beacon, that Charleston is a serial plagiarist who climbed the hierarchy of the higher education establishment by pilfering other people’s scholarship.
Harvard University president Alan Garber — installed after former president Claudine Gay resigned following revelations that she is also a serial plagiarist — has, experts have said, been inconsistent in managing the campus’ unrest.
During summer, The Harvard Crimson reported that Harvard downgraded “disciplinary sanctions” it levied against several pro-Hamas protesters it suspended for illegally occupying Harvard Yard for nearly five weeks, a reversal of policy which defied the university’s previous statements regarding the matter. Unrepentant, the students, members of the group Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine (HOOP), celebrated the revocation of the punishments on social media and promised to disrupt the campus again.
Earlier this semester, however, Garber appeared to denounce a pro-Hamas student group which marked the anniversary of Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks on Israel by praising the brutal invasion as an act of revolutionary justice that should be repeated until the Jewish state is destroyed, despite having earlier announced a new “institutional neutrality” policy which ostensibly prohibits the university from weighing in on contentious political issues. While Garber ultimately has said more than Gay when the same group praised the Oct. 7 massacre last academic year, his administration’s handling of campus antisemitism has been ambiguous, according to observers — and described even by students who benefited from its being so as “caving in.”
The university’s perceived failure to address antisemitism has had legal consequences.
Earlier this month, a lawsuit accusing it of ignoring antisemitism was cleared to proceed to discovery, a phase of the case which may unearth damaging revelations about how college officials discussed and crafted policy responses to anti-Jewish hatred before and after Hamas’s massacre across southern Israel last Oct. 7.
The case, filed by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, centers on several incidents involving Harvard Kennedy School professor Marshall Ganz during the 2022-2023 academic year.
Ganz allegedly refused to accept a group project submitted by Israeli students for his course, titled “Organizing: People, Power, Change,” because they described Israel as a “liberal Jewish democracy.” He castigated the students over their premise, the Brandeis Center says, accusing them of “white supremacy” and denying them the chance to defend themselves. Later, Ganz allegedly forced the Israeli students to attend “a class exercise on Palestinian solidarity” and the taking of a class photograph in which their classmates and teaching fellows “wore ‘keffiyehs’ as a symbol of Palestinian support.”
During an investigation of the incidents, which Harvard delegated to a third party firm, Ganz admitted that he believed “that the students’ description of Israel as a Jewish democracy … was similar to ‘talking about a white supremacist state.’” The firm went on to determine that Ganz “denigrated” the Israeli students and fostered “a hostile learning environment,” conclusions which Harvard accepted but never acted on.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Harvard Chaplains Omit Antisemitism From Statement on Antisemitic Incident first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login