In this context, I wonder about another Taleb phrase: anti-fragile. How can Israel be anti-fragile given that it lacks strategic depth, is surrounded by enemies, and has a small population relative to the number of people who resent its success?
One way would be to hire someone to get compromising photos of various US politicians and other influential people, so they can be persuaded to do your bidding.
Observe public sentiment on Palestine, and then observe the government stance and the particulars of their talking points. Is this democracy in action, or does something seem "off"?
Edward Luttwak, expert in military strategy, wrote a critique of that NYT article and gave his compelling view of how Oct 7 happened. No conspiracy, simply the reality of an army like the IDF in the continual state of low-level conflict with occasionally spikes that Israel faces. Here’s an excerpt from Luttwak’s piece:
“Had Israeli intelligence analysis, or the arrival of a complete war plan sold by an enterprising operative revealed Hamas’s plan for an attack on October 7, the Israelis would have sent much stronger forces to guard the Gaza perimeter. Instead of the lone Merkava tank whose capture by dozens of Hamas fighters was shown again and again in news videos, there would have been a company of 10 tanks in that position, which would have massacred the attackers with their machine-gun fire. As for the single mechanised infantry company with fewer than 100 solders that guarded a critical hinge position, there would have been a battalion or even two that would have crushed the attackers.
But then, of course, Hamas spotters would have seen Israeli troops ready to defeat them — and they would have called off the attack altogether. There is worse: once an attack warning is received and reinforcements are deployed so that the enemy calls off its planned attack, the intelligence indicators that got it right will be discredited as false alarms, while the intelligence officers who failed to heed the signs will be the ones everyone listens to the next time around.”
WWII Japanese Admiral Yamamoto is claimed to have said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Why is there not a rifle behind every blade of grass in Israel?
It is also possible that the attack was known to be incoming, and security was deliberately not adjusted accordingly.
What stories (perceived as facts) immediately fill the minds of each individual who read that previous sentence? I wonder if any of them would be not easily predictable. :)
“The human observers at the border watched and reported Hamas’s drills as they prepared for the attack. **There** warnings were dismissed as “fantasies.” According to a New York Times story, Israel’s security service, the Shin Bet, assumed what was being observed in the early hours of October 7 was a nighttime exercise...”
In this context, I wonder about another Taleb phrase: anti-fragile. How can Israel be anti-fragile given that it lacks strategic depth, is surrounded by enemies, and has a small population relative to the number of people who resent its success?
One way would be to hire someone to get compromising photos of various US politicians and other influential people, so they can be persuaded to do your bidding.
Observe public sentiment on Palestine, and then observe the government stance and the particulars of their talking points. Is this democracy in action, or does something seem "off"?
Edward Luttwak, expert in military strategy, wrote a critique of that NYT article and gave his compelling view of how Oct 7 happened. No conspiracy, simply the reality of an army like the IDF in the continual state of low-level conflict with occasionally spikes that Israel faces. Here’s an excerpt from Luttwak’s piece:
“Had Israeli intelligence analysis, or the arrival of a complete war plan sold by an enterprising operative revealed Hamas’s plan for an attack on October 7, the Israelis would have sent much stronger forces to guard the Gaza perimeter. Instead of the lone Merkava tank whose capture by dozens of Hamas fighters was shown again and again in news videos, there would have been a company of 10 tanks in that position, which would have massacred the attackers with their machine-gun fire. As for the single mechanised infantry company with fewer than 100 solders that guarded a critical hinge position, there would have been a battalion or even two that would have crushed the attackers.
But then, of course, Hamas spotters would have seen Israeli troops ready to defeat them — and they would have called off the attack altogether. There is worse: once an attack warning is received and reinforcements are deployed so that the enemy calls off its planned attack, the intelligence indicators that got it right will be discredited as false alarms, while the intelligence officers who failed to heed the signs will be the ones everyone listens to the next time around.”
WWII Japanese Admiral Yamamoto is claimed to have said, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Why is there not a rifle behind every blade of grass in Israel?
It is also possible that the attack was known to be incoming, and security was deliberately not adjusted accordingly.
What stories (perceived as facts) immediately fill the minds of each individual who read that previous sentence? I wonder if any of them would be not easily predictable. :)
Edit needed:
“The human observers at the border watched and reported Hamas’s drills as they prepared for the attack. **There** warnings were dismissed as “fantasies.” According to a New York Times story, Israel’s security service, the Shin Bet, assumed what was being observed in the early hours of October 7 was a nighttime exercise...”