Scholars hosted by the Visiting Fellows in Israel Studies program at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) on October 27 discussed the lessons of the 1973 Yom Kippur War and its relevance for understanding the current Israel-Hamas war.

The seminar, “1973 Yom Kippur War: Lessons to Remember,” was moderated by Larry Diamond, the Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at FSI who is also leading the Visiting Fellows in Israel Studies program at FSI. 

In his opening remarks, Diamond said, “Our hearts go out to the people of Israel and this struggle they have now in the wake of one of the most horrific terrorist attacks in anyone’s living memory, maybe the most horrific. And to all of the people in Israel and Gaza, who are innocent people who’ve lost their lives.”

Speakers included Or Rabinowitz of the International Relations Department of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a visiting associate professor at FSI’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC); Gil-li Vardi, a former visiting scholar at CISAC and Stanford history lecturer; Professor Emeritus Meron Medzini of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir’s spokesperson during 1973–1974; and Ron Hassner, the Chancellor’s Professor of Political Science and Helen Diller Family Chair in Israel Studies at UC Berkeley. 

Israel’s Nuclear Question

On October 6, 1973, an Arab alliance of Egyptian and Syrian forces launched a surprise attack on Israel on Yom Kippur – the Jewish holy day of atonement. The three-week conflict was one of the deadliest Arab-Israeli wars. It ended with an Israeli victory, shaping inter-state relations in the region for years to come.

Rabinowitz addressed the nuclear dimension of the Yom Kippur War, quoting Richard Nixon, who said in 1972, “The Israelis have nuclear weapons. I’m not going to tell you how I know, but I know that.”

She said a “partial picture” exists of Israel’s nuclear capabilities during the 1973 conflict, and more research needs to be done. Back then, Israel and the U.S. had reached an understanding about Israel’s “ambiguous nuclear posture,” as well as an agreement that any U.S.-made fighter jets would not be used to deploy nuclear weapons. Regarding nuclear-equipped missiles, “we have to take it into account that this was probably a political signaling which wasn’t backed by an actual ability to put in a nuclear warhead on the ballistic missile, but we just don’t know,” Rabinowitz said.

She added, “I am convinced that Golda Meir would have shown nuclear restraint, even if a bilateral understanding had not been in effect with the U.S. – because it made sense, there were moral clouds, and the Israeli objective was to align itself with the U.S. and guarantee further collaboration, and that would have just backfired.”

An Evolving Military Strategy

Vardi said the Yom Kippur War generated a huge incentive for the U.S. military and others to later develop the “AirLand Battle Doctrine,” which emphasizes close coordination between land forces acting as an aggressively maneuvering defense, and air forces attacking rear-echelon forces feeding those front-line enemy forces. 

“It also taught the military leadership in Israel that their instincts are the right ones, that they should always be on the offensive. If war is coming, then they should always be very active about it – active to the point of aggression,” she said.

As for Egypt, Vardi said, they weren’t planning an all-out war against Israel if they didn’t receive help from the Soviet Union or elsewhere, and their tactical goals were therefore limited.

She also noted Israel’s battle doctrine, which rests on three pillars – deterrence, intelligence, and military decision-making, as well as a defensive strategy to be executed offensively, by transferring the battle to enemy territory.

This doctrine failed on October 7 when Hamas attacked Israel, killing more than 1,400 people in Israeli territory. “Israeli security perceptions will need to change,” Vardi said.

Confronting Hamas

On October 7, Medzini said, Israel was dealt its worst blow since 1948. “Totally unprepared, wrong intelligence, the army in disarray, leadership, very poor response. And, parts of proper Israel were occupied by Palestinians with a huge number of casualties.”

He said, “The entire country was stunned. How could this happen to us?”

The Yom Kippur War was totally different than today’s conflict between Israel and Hamas, Medzini said. In 1973 it was launched by mostly secular governments in Egypt and Syria, whereas Hamas is a religious organization. 

“We thought in terms of Western thinking or Arab thinking. We did not take into account that Hamas is a religious organization. If you read their covenant, if you look at the logo, it’s not only to destroy the Jews of Israel, it’s to destroy the Jews” everywhere, Medzini said. 

Hassner said Israel’s opponents erred during the Yom Kippur War by believing the Israelis would be unable to mobilize quickly. 

“Mobilization turned out to be very easy,” he said, “because everybody was in the same place. Everybody was in the synagogue. And so, unit commanders just went to the nearest synagogues and told all the young men to come out. The roads were empty, which the Egyptians seemed to be unaware of. Mobilization to the front may have happened at twice the speed at which the Israeli military had planned to mobilize, because nobody else was on the road.”

Also, Hassner said, a backlash effect can exist if one is attempting to exploit their opponents’ religious holiday – “you are going to unleash a certain amount of religiously motivated anger.”

Regarding Israel’s security situation today, Rabinowitz said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies reflect a deep miscalculation of Hamas since the terror group rose to power in 2007 in the Gaza Strip. After Netanyahu took office in 2009, “he went on the record saying that his main mission is to strengthen Hamas” by favoring it over other Palestinian groups.

Medzini said Israel has to conduct a major operation in Gaza to make sure that Hamas loses its military and political capabilities. “You can’t kill an ideology. You can’t kill a religion. But you can certainly destroy a military capability and capacity,” he said. But, Medzini also noted, “Where do we go from here? What’s the end game?”

Diamond spoke of reigniting the peace process and bringing back the two-state solution in a very actual manner. “I’ll note what I think everybody in the room knows that if Hamas is removed from Gaza, something else needs to go and fill that gap.”

Scholars from the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies discussed the global and regional implications of Hamas’ terror attack during a webinar on October 13, 2023.

Larry Diamond, the Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at FSI and William L. Clayton Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, moderated the conversation. Speakers included Abbas Milani, the Hamid and Christina Moghadam Director of Iranian Studies; Ori Rabinowitz of the International Relations Department of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a visiting associate professor at FSI’s Center for International Security and Cooperation; and Amichai Magen, of the Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy, and Strategy, Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, and the inaugural visiting fellow in Israel Studies at FSI. 

Israel declared war against Hamas after the terrorist group infiltrated the country on October 7, firing thousands of rockets at residential areas, killing civilians, and inflicting the most lethal attack on Israel since its founding in 1948.

Diamond said, “The brutal October 7 attacks on innocent Israeli civilians by the terrorist group Hamas constitute one of the most appalling incidents of terrorism in our lifetimes.” He noted that for a smaller country the size of Israel, when compared to the U.S., their death toll of 1,200 that weekend is equivalent to more than 40,000 Americans – or more than 10 times the U.S. death toll on 9/11.

Impact on Israelis

Rabinowitz said Israelis have been deeply affected by Hamas’ atrocities. “It’s trauma being compounded by failure of the Israeli state and the army institution to respond immediately to all levels of this. It really brought to the surface images of the Holocaust.” 

However, she said, Israeli civil society is strong and resilient, and it’s taking on the role of providing what the government's institutions and leadership should have provided more quickly after the attacks. “Soldiers called up for duty were driven to the front by their parents and by family friends,” for example, she said.

Magen said Hamas’ attacks shattered three fundamental myths for Israelis. One involved the notion that Israel could coexist with Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The second illusion that broke was the belief that the government of Israel and the Israeli Defense Forces could effectively protect the civilian population.

“The reason why this is a much bigger trauma than Yom Kippur (in 1973) is because on Yom Kippur there was a very high military death toll, but the civilian population was protected,” Magen said. "However, this time, thousands of Israeli civilians were massacred before the Israeli state could even respond."

The third illusion, Magen said, was the belief that global jihad was non-existent in today’s world. “This is a cautionary tale – sometimes Israel is the canary in the coal mine. What happens in Israel today may tragically happen in the United States or elsewhere.”

Iran and Regional Implications

Milani noted the speculation about whether Iran ordered the attacks, but said that misses the larger picture. “Iran created Hamas in this sense. Iran is the architect of the narrative” that the future of the Middle East must not include Israel.

He said the only solution for lasting peace in the region is a two-state solution (with a Palestinian state) and an Iran with a democratic government. But extremists are in power in all the involved countries and now this outcome is even more difficult, said Milani. “Iran has been adamant in undermining the two-state solution.”

Milani also said the Hamas incursions should end the illusion shared by some in the West that you can make enough concessions to the Iranian regime and it will change its support for terrorism. 

“This regime is not going to abide by laws, it is not going to abide by its commitments. It is murderously suppressing the Iranian people,” he said.

Iran, Milani believes, sees the Hamas attacks as a major turning point in its bid for regional supremacy and the demise of Israel. It wants to undermine the delicate normalization talks between Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries. With Iranian-backed Hezbollah aiming more than 150,000 rockets at Israel, Iran is maneuvering for possibly a broader conflict and chaos that could see Israel confronting several fronts.

Milani added that his heart goes out to all the victims and the hostages of this ordeal, noting that the 2 million-plus citizens of Gaza are also hostages to this catastrophe. “Human beings should be considered as hostages in this brutal regime (Hamas).” Their lives should be protected as well, and this would be best for the future of the Middle East and for the future of Israel.

Factors Leading to Attacks

Rabinowitz said scholars in the future will need to examine how the more radical factions in the Middle East realigned and created such a situation, she said. 

Magen said Israel was too complacent in regard to their technologically-enhanced security systems, rife with domestic political polarization, and naïve that a deal could be struck with Hamas.

“Israel was clearly perceived to be vulnerable and divided internally, and the enemy pounced. We in Israel tend to think that we watch very carefully what is happening in the neighborhood, but the neighborhood also watches us,” he said.

With Iran nearing the nuclear threshold for a weapon of mass destruction, the West needs to be incredibly aware of this possibility, Magen said. 

Campus Conversations

Diamond and the scholars emphasized the need for civil dialogue and safe spaces for conversations on college campuses about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rabinowitz said the Stanford community is well-positioned to achieve this. 

She said, “We’re not in Israel and Gaza, and we can use this opportunity to foster more dialogue between the different groups, between different students, and I think that is part of our jobs.”

Magen said, “We must create constructive spaces for empathic and sympathetic analysis, conversation, and engagement. We need to talk about difficult issues – we live in a difficult world.” 

The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies produced the webinar, “The Hamas Terrorist Attack on Israel and its Implications for the Middle East,” in cooperation with the Visiting Fellows in Israel Studies program, where Professors Magen and Rabinowitz are visiting scholars. The program was launched in September 2021 with the aim of deepening FSI’s academic expertise in geopolitics and democracy studies as it relates to Israel.

At approximately 6:30am on October 7th—on the holy sabbath of Shemini Atzeret, the eighth and final day of the Jewish holiday of Sukkot—air raid sirens went off all across Israel. Before the day was done, more than 3,000 rockets, missiles, and mortar shells were fired by Hamas, as well as Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), from Gaza into Israel. As with all recent attacks, the barrages were fired from within densely populated Palestinian civilian areas into densely populated civilian areas inside Israel, constituting a double war crime.

But this time things were different. This time the salvos of rocket fire—as intensive, indiscriminate, and far-ranging as they undoubtedly were—were not the attack itself. They were primarily a diversion meant to obfuscate, and provide cover for, a Hamas invasion, slaughter, and kidnapping operation.

Read the full article in "Persuasion."

Last week, Hamas carried out horrific, barbaric acts of terrorism against innocent Israeli civilians, resulting in over a thousand killed, including 22 American citizens. The brutality and scale of their slaughter – including killing grandmothers and babies – was shocking. No previous injustice, prior wrong, or longstanding grievance justifies these heinous actions. Hamas launched its terrorist attacks knowing very well that Israel would retaliate, deliberately triggering more suffering for the people they claim to defend. As an act of self-defense, the democratically elected government has the responsibility to protect its citizens and the legitimate right to use force for self-defense, first and foremost against Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but also in response to other actors in the region – Hezbollah and their Iranian backers – if they try to expand the scope of this war.

In waging its military offensive, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) must abide by international law and minimize civilian casualties and civilian suffering. Hamas must do the same and stop using Palestinian civilians as human shields to protect their terrorists and military supplies. That is both immoral and illegal. International organizations and the international community also need to work together to reduce civilian suffering in this war, including working with Egypt and Israel to allow safe passage for Palestinian refugees from Gaza into Egypt temporarily.

Hamas has consolidated a ruthless dictatorship to maintain power in Gaza. While polls show that Hamas is popular in Gaza, no citizen there voted for last week’s grotesque massacre, and obviously, Palestinians residing in the West Bank and Israel had no voice either. Even while watching with horror as some Palestinians celebrate these terrorist acts, analysts must be careful not to conflate Hamas with all Palestinians.

Palestinians deserve democratic governance, self-rule, sovereignty, and protection of their human rights and their property. The strategy of neglect of these issues has failed. In the book "Advancing Democracy Abroad: Why We Should and How We Can" which I published in 2010, I identified “help[ing] to negotiate a peace treaty between Israel and Palestine” (p. 203) as a key U.S. policy objective for promoting democracy and fighting terrorism in the Middle East. I still believe that today. But we must have the moral clarity to denounce Hamas’s horrific terrorism without qualification and at the same time give greater attention to protecting Palestinians’ human rights, including the right to self-determination. Passion for the latter is no excuse for the former.

As a professor at Stanford University who leads a major research institute of international studies, I personally and we collectively as an academic community have a responsibility to study and explain this conflict, both the short-term precipitants and the long-term causes. At the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, we have the Center for International Security and Cooperation which has worked on the Middle East for decades, as well as programs both on Israel Studies and Arab Reform and Democracy. We also collaborate closely with the Program in Iranian Studies. Academic research is our paramount mission. Follow their work in the coming days and weeks. Read my colleague Amy Zegart’s essay on “Israel’s Intelligence Disaster” in Foreign Affairs published today. 

Tune in to our webinar, open to all, on the Middle East this Friday at 2pm Pacific Time - register here. All scholars at FSI speak for themselves, do their own independent research, and follow no institutional guidance from me. No doubt, some will disagree with this essay. Academic freedom and diversity of views are positive features of our institution, our university, and hopefully all universities.

As a former policymaker still engaged in U.S. foreign policy debates, I also feel obliged to make recommendations that advance American interests and values. At this moment in history, charting a successful U.S. foreign policy course in the Middle East is not simple or obvious. Untangling complexity, accurately weighing tradeoffs, and anticipating second and third-order consequences of immediate policy actions is essential.

But one can do all these things – nuanced explanation and prudent prescription – without compromising on essential truths. Terrorism is terrorism. It must be identified clearly and denounced forcefully. It is never justified.

This move has set off alarm bells both inside and outside of Israel. The only well-established, functioning democracy in the Middle East, many fear that the country may be heading toward a constitutional crisis.

To offer context on the current situation and its implication both for Israel and the broader geopolitical community, Amichai Magen, the inaugural Visiting Fellow in the Israel Visiting Fellows Program at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, joined Michael McFaul on the World Class podcast. 

In their conversation, Magen explains some of the cultural and political reasons that led Israel to this point, and offers his analysis of how Israel might move forward.

Listen to the full episode above, or browse highlights from their conversation below. Click here for a transcript of "Understanding Israel's Democracy."

The Paradox of Israeli Democracy

At the heart of the current crisis, says Magen, are unresolved tensions in Israel’s identity as a democratic nation. It has been a democracy since its recognition as an independent state in 1948, and in its 75 years as a nation, pulled off nothing less than a miracle of growth, development, and economic success. In 2022, it was the fastest growing country of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nations and entered the top 20 ranking of countries with the highest GDP per capita. Outside of strictly economic statistics, it was also listed as the fourth happiest country on earth, falling in line behind Finland, Denmark and Iceland.

“This is a country that came from very inauspicious circumstances and has not only survived, but thrived as an open and pluralistic society,” Magen told McFaul. “If you and I looked at Israel this time last year, we would be in awe of this country.”

However, there have always been vulnerabilities brewing under the surface of this great success.

Israel notably lacks a formal, written constitution, and has long relied on what Magen references as “norms and mores” in order to keep the work of government in line with accepted precedent. He explains further:

“Israel has decided not to decide on some of the critical questions that are normally settled in constitutional conventions. We don't have formal rules on separation of church and state. We decided not to decide on whether the ultra-orthodox in Israel should serve in the army or not serve in the army. We decided not to decide what should be the relationship between the Jewish majority and the Arab Israeli minority that makes up 20% of the Israeli population.

“And Israel has done pretty well by fudging those issues, by not bringing them to the fore, and by essentially trying to focus on mundane bread-and-butter political issues. But we find ourselves confronting a coalition government that today wants to take Israel down a different path.” 
 

Learning from the Current Crisis

In the short-term, Magen does not see a short-term fix for the current situation as long as the Netanyahu government remains entrenched. Speaking about the situation in a recent BBC interview, he expressed his fears that the situation “has reached a point where Netanyahu's personal political fortunes are being put ahead of everything else in Israel."

But there are signs of what may lay ahead. Current polling in Israel shows that if national elections were held now, the Netanyahu administration would lose. And the ongoing protests , now nearly eight months long, show the commitment of the demonstrators.

Magen hopes that this current crisis will be a springboard for Israel to finally address some of the issues it has “decided not to decide.” While a singular, decisive constitutional convention would be satisfying, Magen imagines these changes will most likely come as a series of decisions over time.

“At the very least, we need to set in place the procedural rules of the game to make sure that we have stronger guardrails around how we’re going to conduct our national politics,” he explained.

Continuing, he said, “It might happen in one grand bargain, but I think more realistically, we will see a series of incremental changes of finer grained reforms that will try to put in place those guardrails. I think there's going to be quite a lot of pressure for Israelis to move in that direction, and that is the space to watch over the coming months and years.”
 

International Implications

Magen says another important lesson Israel’s current situation has to offer is a comparative lens for other democracies around the world suffering from similar polarization.

“This is not unique to Israel. We've seen something similar happening in places like Holland, Sweden, and Germany. There's something in the air that is driving mistrust and polarization and a collapse in public trust in elected authorities all around the world. And that is something we need to do a better job at understanding,” Magen emphasizes.

The implications of Israel’s importance as a democratic cornerstone in the Middle East also shouldn’t be underestimated, says Magen.

“We've managed to make tremendous progress in Middle Eastern peace based on the understanding that Israel's neighbors have that Israel is a powerful, cohesive, and coherent international actor. If that is undermined, then we could find ourselves in a much more precarious regional and international environment with very serious consequences for energy markets and for stability in the Middle East and Europe and beyond,” he warns.

Magen explains that it is critical in this moment for the people of Israel to know that their efforts to protect and preserve democracy in their country is recognized by fellow democrats around the world.

“This is a time when the people of Israel — not only the Israeli government — really need to hear from their friends around the world, including, and I would say first and foremost, in the United States,” says Magen.

It’s a principle that’s applicable not only to the current situation in Israel, but to the global democratic community as a whole, he explains. 

“Just as authoritarians and populists have their international networks and circles, we really need to strengthen the circles and the networks of support for democracy all around the world, including for Israeli democracy,” Magen urges. “And we'd better do it earlier rather than later.”