Ariel (Eli) Levite, Toby Dalton
{
"authors": [
"Ariel (Eli) Levite"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Middle East",
"Israel",
"North Africa",
"Egypt",
"Palestine"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Global Governance",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
Contemporary Society-Centric Warfare: Insights From the Israeli Experience
It is argued that several Western states currently similarly engage in such warfare, but without fully admitting as much or effectively adjusting their strategies, doctrines and force structures.
Source: Vie de I’IRSEM
Shimshoni and Levite offer a fresh look at the transformation of warfare, focusing on its evolution from post-Westphalian struggle predominantly taking place between opposing military organizations into society centric confrontations. They submit that all contemporary opponents of the West have made the social dimension central to warfare, de facto pursuing society-centric strategies even when they apply traditional force. They argue that several Western states currently similarly engage in such warfare, but without fully admitting as much or effectively adjusting their strategies, doctrines and force structures. Building on their recent expose in Survival of the theoretical and historical underpinnings of this phenomenon, the authors turn to the rich and varied Israeli warfighting experience for additional insights into the nature and dynamics of contemporary societycentric confrontation.
In this paper the authors examine the societal warfare phenomenon in four Arab-Israeli cases: Ben Gurion’s formulation of Israel’s foundational grand strategy and doctrine; the Egyptian-Israeli War of Attrition; Israel’s ongoing confrontation with Hamas; and with Hezbollah these past two decades. They conclude with observations on factors that tend to escalate and increase the undesired societization of warfare, discussing critical implications for the study and practice of strategy.
About the Author
Senior Fellow, Nuclear Policy Program, Technology and International Affairs Program
Levite was the principal deputy director general for policy at the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission from 2002 to 2007.
- Demystifying the Nuclear ThresholdPaper
- Promoting Responsible Nuclear Energy Conduct: An Agenda for International CooperationArticle
Ariel (Eli) Levite, Toby Dalton
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Letter from the Editor: Europe Takes Two Steps Forward But One Step BackCommentary
As we close out another season of Strategic Europe, it is worth taking stock of the deep shifts underway.
Rym Momtaz
- Taking the Pulse: Are the EU’s Watered-Down Russia Sanctions Better than None?Commentary
The EU had to compromise to adopt a twenty-first sanctions package against Russia, exposing growing cracks in the union’s resolve. Is this latest, weaker round worth it to keep pressure on Moscow?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- Why Europe Must Take Charge of its Russia Diplomacy NowCommentary
Trump is distracted and Ukraine wants Europe to step up. The continent’s leaders must find their voice and assert it in talks with Russia.
Alissa de Carbonnel
- Why Russia Could Escalate Hybrid Warfare Against EuropeCommentary
Mounting economic strain and battlefield losses will not necessarily make the Kremlin less dangerous. They could instead push Moscow toward a more aggressive hybrid campaign designed to test NATO’s Eastern flank, exploit allied hesitation, and fracture European resolve.
Maksym Beznosiuk
- Taking the Pulse: Enough with the Annual NATO Summits, Already?Commentary
Over the past ten years, NATO has held almost as many summits as it did during the entirety of the Cold War. Are they still useful, or is it time to stop holding annual meetings?
Rym Momtaz, ed.