Though
pundits are heavily engaged in analyzing the unfolding events in Gaza,
historians have yet to reflect on its true magnitude. Someone, someday, may
look back at the events with some degree of objectivity and see it as yet
another major turning point in the study of the asymmetry of power and the
fallacy that technology can indefinitely subjugate the human desire for
freedom.
اضافة اعلان
Historically,
there has always been an inherent tension between the idea that technology is
an enabler of those in power and the idea that it is a leveler of power (the
haves and the have-nots). Neither one seems to triumph indefinitely over the
other. It is more of a game of cat and
mouse in which powers monopolize technology for some time only to find that
others can also reap its benefit to achieve some military and political gain.
On
the military side, US technological superiority enabled it to wage two major
wars in different operational theatres simultaneously in the early 2000s, but
the very same ICT revolution that allowed for this also enabled non-state
actors and dispersed terrorist groups to harness the power of this technology
to enable new operational doctrines and forms of organization that wreaked
havoc on US military objectives. On the latter, the same technological advances
later undercut political support for the US by allowing for widespread leaks of
abuses during the same campaigns, such as torture in Abu Ghraib, massacres
committed by Blackwater, civilian drone strike deaths, and corruption of US
contractors.
On October 7, Hamas broke Israel’s assumed air of invincibility. An overreliance on technological superiority had falsely reassured Israelis about their impermeability to the extent that they had no active presence on the billion-dollar border fence with Gaza. Furthermore, nearby communities some 5km / 3.2 miles away felt safe enough to put on a rave or a concert.
Were
it not for this ICT revolution, the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan might
have seemed more like the first Gulf War of 1991, a “clean” war with no
civilian casualties as relayed to us by CNN. Perhaps we would still be seeing
images of US soldiers distributing water bottles and candy to Iraqi and Afghan
children. This interplay of technology and power can also be seen on an
intrastate level as well and there are numerous vivid examples such as Chinese
protestors in Tiananmen Square, LAPD police brutality of Rodney King, and the
Arab Spring, all of which would not have been possible or captured without the
advent and spread of personal video recorders or camera cell phones.
As
though history is doomed to repeat itself, the more recent technological
revolutions of the Fourth Industrial Revolution also increasingly gave the
impression that technological superiority can allow those with power to
overlook the root causes of instability and live in isolation. The events of
Hamas’ Oct 7 attacks and those leading up to it should also be seen within this
context, at least partially. The security management approach of Palestinians
by Israel kept deteriorating the status quo for the Palestinians and
perpetuated an ongoing cycle of violence. Facing security challenges in 2005,
Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip with no negotiated political
settlement, which in turn created new security problems. Israel responded by
building a wall; Hamas fired rockets over it. Israel improved rocket
interception capabilities; Hamas resorted to tunneling. Israel installed
sensors and underground barriers; Hamas resorted to more rudimentary rockets.
Israel built the Iron Dome, which is celebrated as a peak technological
achievement; Hamas resorted to paragliders.
His Majesty King Abdullah once described the prevailing mentality of the Israeli government as “Fortress Israel,” and perhaps this description appropriately captures Israel’s sense of imperviousness.
It is
an admittedly oversimplified picture used to describe a complex issue. There is
no end in sight to this game of cat and mouse, especially if Israel only
utilizes military and technological solutions to address a political problem.
On
October 7, Hamas broke Israel’s assumed air of invincibility. An overreliance
on technological superiority had falsely reassured Israelis about their
impermeability to the extent that they had no active presence on the
billion-dollar border fence with Gaza. Furthermore, nearby communities some 5km
/ 3.2 miles away felt safe enough to put on a rave or a concert.
His
Majesty King Abdullah once described the prevailing mentality of the Israeli
government as “Fortress Israel,” and perhaps this description appropriately
captures Israel’s sense of imperviousness.
There
was a generation of Israeli leaders who recognized that Israel’s military and
technological superiority would not bring it security. Stemming from the belief
that peace would, they sought a political solution with the Palestinians, and
some, like Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, paid a hefty price for it.
More
recently, a long list of Israeli military and security officials have also
arrived at the same conclusion, including Shlomo Brom (former Director of
Strategic Planning at the IDF) and Yuval Duskin former Director of the Israeli
Internal Security Service), to name a few. They have effectively said that the
occupation is untenable.
The
current prime minister, Prime Minister Netanyahu, represents an ever-growing
cohort of people who believe the opposite, that security will bring peace. Oct
7 may have refuted that.
It
is as yet unclear whether the unfolding events in Gaza will bring about a
change in Israeli thinking such that decision-makers realize the need for a
political solution or whether it would lead them to double down on the current
(failed) security approach. For the time being, Israel’s response and comments
made by Israeli leaders seem to point to the latter.
Nonetheless,
it is important to note that Israel’s peace generation arguably emerged as a
response to previous bouts of heavy-handed security approaches and atrocities
that Israel committed in the 1980s (in Lebanon and during the Intifada) as well
as immense international pressure, not all too different than the current
situation.
This article originally appeared in Global Comment.
Nasser bin Nasser is founder and CEO of Ambit Advisory.
Disclaimer:
Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Jordan News' point of view.
Read more Opinion and Analysis
Jordan News
.jpg)
.jpg)
