The Drawbacks of Israel’s Military Brilliance

Dec. 19 2024

One thing that has become clear in the past fourteen months is that the process of defeating Hamas and Hizballah is a long and arduous one. To Ariel Vishne, the problem with such Israeli feats of intelligence and technological wizardry as the detonation of Hizballah pagers is that they can mask the need for the sort of patient, messy operations like the one the IDF is conducting in Gaza. His argument is not that the pager attack was ill-considered, or indeed, anything but a success, only that there can be ancillary costs to such displays of ingenuity:

Killing dozens of Hizballah operatives and injuring thousands could have been achieved through the carpet bombing of Beirut. But the achievement was made in an unprecedented, targeted manner, with minimal harm to non-combatants. The downside is that this sets an unrealistic standard when the “cool operation” can’t deliver the same effect—either because it’s not feasible in the first place or because it is feasible but with much higher collateral damage. The very existence of the “cool operation” creates a strong illusion about how wars work and sets an impossible bar.

And when tools as magical as “a terrorist organization’s dedicated communications devices that only terrorists use, which will explode exactly when and where we want” exist, there’s a strong tendency to believe that every problem can be solved through the framework of Israeli cunning.

The problem is precisely that—when Israel is successful, its successes are so elegant that they create the illusion of a panacea. This often leads to them being carried out in isolation, or at least not tightly connected enough to a broader, holistic political framework. And, in international security, there aren’t only “cool operations”; there’s also a lot of grunt work, less “cool” actions, and certainly less elegant ones.

Read more at Providence

More about: Hizballah, IDF, Israeli Security, Israeli strategy

Kuwait Should Be the Next Country to Make Peace with Israel

Feb. 13 2025

Like his predecessor, Donald Trump seeks to expand the Abraham Accords to include Saudi Arabia. But there are other Arab nations that might consider taking such a step. Ahmad Charai points to Kuwait—home to the Middle East’s largest U.S. army base and desperately in need of economic reform—as a good candidate. Kuwaitis haven’t forgiven Palestinians for supporting Saddam Hussein during his 1990 invasion, but their country has been more rhetorically hostile to Israel than its Gulf neighbors:

The Abraham Accords have reshaped Middle Eastern diplomacy. . . . Kuwait, however, remains hesitant due to internal political resistance. While full normalization may not be immediately feasible, the United States should encourage Kuwait to take gradual steps toward engagement, emphasizing how participation in regional cooperation does not equate to abandoning its historical positions.

Kuwait could use its influence to push for peace in the Middle East through diplomatic channels opened by engagement rather than isolation. The economic benefits of joining the broader framework of the Abraham Accords are overwhelming. Israel’s leadership in technology, agriculture, and water management presents valuable opportunities for Kuwait to enhance its infrastructure. Trade and investment flows would diversify the economy, providing new markets and business partnerships.

Kuwaiti youth, who are increasingly looking for opportunities beyond the public sector, could benefit from collaboration with advanced industries, fostering job creation and entrepreneurial growth. The UAE and Bahrain have already demonstrated how normalization with Israel can drive economic expansion while maintaining their respective geopolitical identities.

Read more at Jerusalem Strategic Tribune

More about: Abraham Accords, Kuwait