Strategic Assessment

Keywords: decision, victory, IDF strategy, security concept, national security

Introduction

Upon assuming his post as Chief of Staff in 2019, Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi sought to reexamine the meaning of the term “victory.” To this end a three-day "victory workshop" was convened, led by the head of the Operations Directorate, Maj. Gen. Aharon Haliva, during which the members of the IDF General Staff and senior brigadier generals discussed various approaches to victory, with the aim of incorporating them into multi-year plans (Shoval, 2019).

There is no consensus regarding the meaning of the terms hachra'a and victory. Furthermore, alongside similar but different approaches to the respective terms, over the years contradictory and even opposing perspectives have developed regarding their meaning.

This is not the first time the term has been examined in the IDF. As early as 2001, a large-scale symposium was held in which the defense and military leadership examined the term victory in relation to the meaning of the term hachra'a [commonly translated as decision]1 from a large variety of military and defense aspects.

On the one hand, the fact that the term victory [nitzahon] was examined in light of the term hachra'a seems to indicate that victory is not hachra'a and hachra'a is not victory, as why would one definition have two different names? On the other hand, the symposium (and dozens of other discussions and studies on the issue) clearly proved that there is no consensus regarding the meaning of the terms hachra'a and victory. Furthermore, alongside similar but different approaches to the respective terms, over the years contradictory and even opposing perspectives have developed regarding their meaning.

This article argues that the source of the contradictory and opposing views that have developed in relation to the terms hachra'a and victory lies in terminological confusion. This confusion took root gradually in the military and security establishment and then penetrated the Israeli media, generating conceptual confusion not only in security settings but in Israeli society as a whole. Accordingly, the article discusses different sources that led to the terminological confusion between the two terms in an attempt to resolve it. The meanings of the terms are based on their definitions in the Dictionary of IDF Terms (1998). The article focuses on the term hachra'a, examining how it finds expression in various fields in an attempt to clarify the meaning of the term victory. The article contends that the meaning of the term hachra'a as a "military outcome" is unclear and that the damage caused by this confusion primarily affects the meaning of the military outcome contained in the term victory.

The Questionable Term

What is the meaning of hachra'a? The first meaningful theoretical discussion on the topic of hachra'a in the military context was published in Israel in the 1990s, in Avi Kober's book Hachra'a (1995). This book explores the term hachra'a through a structured, focused comparative study and through an outline that takes into account both its universal apsct and its particular Israeli aspect. In the Dictionary of IDF Terms, Kober's broad and comprehensive definition of the term hachra'a was watered down to the following official definition:

Breaking the enemy's power of resistance to take effective action against us, by creating a situation in which (in the assessment of the decider) the conditions exist for achieving the stated mission. The state of hachra'a is usually evident from the fact that the enemy has lost its ability to operate against us effectively (Dictionary of IDF Terms, 1998, p. 136).2

Presumably an explicit dictionary definition of the term hachra'a would offer a precise and exhaustive linguistic description of the term's meaning, thus preventing different semantic interpretations. The reality was far different. Over the years, the term hachra'a has been given a wide variety of interpretations. These interpretations, which were provided first and foremost by the highest military echelons and leading national security researchers, contained meanings that differed completely from one another. Furthermore, stark contradictions were also found between a series of definitions that referred to this term and the official definition formulated in the Dictionary of IDF Terms. For example, at a symposium titled "Between Decision and Victory," Isaac Ben-Israel claimed that hachra'a "is entirely, or almost entirely, aimed at breaking the will to fight—and not the ability” (Ben-Israel, 2001, p. 83). In contrast, on the same occasion Shlomo Yanai stated that "hachra'a is an abstract concept” (Yanai, 2001, p. 109). Dan Halutz argued that hachra'a is a cognitive matter and proposed deleting the notion of "physical hachra'a" from the lexicon (Halutz, 2001, p. 100). Shaul Mofaz, in contrast, held that hachra'a "is made up of a series of victories in the air, at sea, and on land" (Mofaz, 2001, p. 127). Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon contended that the correct definition of hachra'a is "the achievement or fulfillment of the objectives you set for yourself" (Ya'alon, 2001, p. 75), while Herzl Shafir claimed that hachra'a is measured in quantitative, geographical, and psychological parameters (Shafir, 2001, p. 141).

If all these are not sufficient to illustrate the lack of clarity surrounding the term hachra'a, Kober himself stated at the symposium:

My name is connected with the concept of military hachra'a because I wrote a book about military hachra'a, but as you will see, I am not so committed to military hachra'a. Military hachra'a played a central role in Israel's military life, but I will attempt to show that we must rethink the concept using more complex thinking than we had become accustomed to. Along with this concept are two additional concepts that, when combined with the concept of hachra'a, help us think about achievements in war: victory and the test of history. (Kober, 2001, p. 13)

In the following years, more interpretations were added to the list of definitions, further deepening the existing terminological confusion surrounding the term hachra'a and its relation to the term victory, defined as follows:

Victory: overcoming the enemy and creating a situation in which the victor in a war, campaign, or battle has fully or largely achieved its military objectives, at a cost that can be tolerated. Achieving victory is the constant and overriding aim of every soldier in every situation. (Dictionary of IDF Terms, 1998, p. 424)

For example, Yaakov Amidror published an article criticizing the military for beginning to refer to the concept of hachra'a as a cognitive concept, thus generating "the belief that there is no military way to cope with terrorism in order to defeat it" (Amidror, 2006, p. 6). Yaakov Zigdon thought that hachra'a is an objective concept and victory is a subjective concept, such that "when hachra'a is not achieved, each side can claim victory" (Zigdon, 2008, p. 45).

The IDF Strategy document published a few years later distinguishes between tactical hachra'a (on the tactical level IDF commanders will strive to achieve hachra'a in every mission they are charged with) and strategic hachra'a (the IDF strives for hachra'a as manifested in the enemy's lack of ability or lack of desire to operate against us and its inability to defend itself). Nonetheless, the term hachra'a, which the document names as one of "the IDF’s four general principles for applying force" (IDF Strategy, 2015, p. 14), is at the same time linked to the term "victory" and not differentiated from it.

Israel's security concept was also examined by a committee headed by Dan Meridor, which assumed that in order to achieve victory in all kinds of conflicts and at all levels of intensity, hachra'a "alternatives" must be developed (Meridor and Eldadi, 2018, p. 25). A recent book by Amiram Ezov titled Hachra'a: Who Won the Yom Kippur War? (2020) likewise grapples with the meaning of the terms hachra'a and victory. The fact that Ezov believes that Clausewitz’s parameters define victory (p. 341), while according to Amidror (2001, p. 113) these same parameters in fact define hachra'a, is one of many examples pointing to the problematic nature of the many original and borrowed meanings attributed to the term hachra'a in military contexts.

The Importance of Terminology

A lack of conceptual clarity is a dangerous phenomenon that leads to terminological confusion. Indeed, the importance of concepts and their defined meanings is no less than critical in the eyes of many national security researchers. For example, in his article "The Military Aspects of Limited Operations," Moni Chorev presents a series of lacunae that in his view exist in the concepts of hachra'a, deterrence, and victory. He insists on the need for more precise terms to incorporate the concept of security, as "the planning discourse today adheres to concepts, some of which are no longer valid but are used to anchor situation assessments and plan a campaign’s operational efforts." Hence, greater precision in the meanings of concepts "is not a semantic change, but rather a substantive issue that dictates the way leaders and chiefs of staff think and manage strategic operations” (Chorev, 2017, pp. 121-122).

Similarly, former Armored Corps brigade commander Yehuda Wegman states that "conceptual confusion among the senior echelons always also leads to practical confusion at the operational levels" (Wegman, 1999, p. 90). This statement is in line with the conclusion of the important terminological discussion in the study by Yossi Baidatz and Dima Adamsky about the development of the Israeli approach to the concept of deterrence. In this study, they state that "the Israeli concept of 'deterrence' that is accepted today—which is very similar to the simple and traditional dictionary definition—not only is insufficient, but can also cause strategic damage" (Baidatz & Adamsky, 2014, p. 7).

Damage of this type indeed made a mark over the years, both in the context of operational military activity and in relation to national security issues. Ben-Israel offers a prominent example, explaining how a misleading definition or distorted terminology can lead to mistaken conceptual thinking, and in turn, to erroneous conduct:

For years, out of mistaken thinking whose source is beyond me, we divided our wars in two: we said there are "real" wars, like the war against Syria or against Egypt, and there is routine security…It is not so clear why we thought this, but it is clear this is a mistake…I do not know why we thought this way, but I can state the contrary: From the moment we understood this—only three or four years ago—from the moment we understood this, we understood our mistake. (Ben-Israel, 2001, pp. 89-90)

That the frequent and incautious use of the concepts of hachra'a and victory "could return to the army and the chief of staff like a boomerang, because civilians, journalists, members of Knesset, commentators, and others are liable to understand and interpret the results of the next campaign in light of the concepts of hachra'a and victory as they were traditionally understood from the wars of the past."

Another example appears in the conclusions of the Agranat Commission, charged with investigating the Yom Kippur War. The commission members pointed out a series of hazy operational expressions and meanings, among them orders to "hold back" and "advance cautiously." In later wars as well, unclear conceptual definitions led to terminological confusion that influenced operational and strategic aspects. One example was the report of the commander of the 91^st Division in the Second Lebanon War about control of Bint Jbeil. The report created a mistaken impression from which it could be concluded that the IDF forces had conquered the town (Kober, 2017, p. 220). These examples illustrate Wegman's argument that "underlying the process of creating vague terms is a foundation of commanders who evade responsibility for their subordinates as they are unable to inject any practical content into these terms" (Wegman, 1999, p. 91).

Hence, Dov Tamari's warning—that the frequent and incautious use of the concepts of hachra'a and victory "could return to the army and the chief of staff like a boomerang, because civilians, journalists, members of Knesset, commentators, and others are liable to understand and interpret the results of the next campaign in light of the concepts of hachra'a and victory as they were traditionally understood from the wars of the past" (Tamari, 2016, p. 148)—not only strengthens the argument that the meanings of the terms are insufficiently clear, but also has actual expressions in reality.

One of the most prominent cases illustrating the confusion of Israeli society regarding the precise definitions and meanings of terms emerged in the public discourse following the Second Lebanon War. Vague interpretations and unclear definitions of the military terms hachra'a and victory were a central source of controversy that arose not only in Israeli society and the Israeli media but also in military and political forums. These were also reflected in the Winograd Commission report, which used the concept of victory over 60 times without defining it and without its being clear that everyone involved necessarily interpreted the term in the same way. Ultimately, the terminological confusion was so great that a situation arose in which entire systems had difficulty identifying who was the victor at the end of a round of fighting, whether this “victor” had won or had decided [hichria] the battle, and what is the actual difference (if at all) between victory and hachra'a.

A similar situation emerged following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, which reawakened theoretical discussions of the concept of victory that sought to sharpen the interpretation and meaning of the term. Among these were the monograph by theoretician Colin Gray (2002) on the possibility of achieving decisive victory and the book by William Martel (2007) that Bartholomees (2010) used as a basis for developing his theory of victory. A recently published book titled Moral Victories discusses, inter alia, the changing attributes inherent in the concept of victory and the challenges and problems contained in the concept of victory in the modern era (Hom et al., 2017). Another relevant book is Extreme Ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs Lead and Win by Jocko Willink and Leif Babin, which was published in 2017 and translated into Hebrew under the title Responsibility and Victory (Willink & Babin, 2020. This book associated the concept of leadership with that of victory. In addition, Victory, by researcher Cian O'Driscoll (2019), examines in depth the success and failure inherent in the term "just war," while referring to the definitions of "morality" and "victory" in the modern era.

The Conceptual Failure in the Term Hachra'a

Before delving into the arena of national security and military boundaries in an attempt to prove the article’s claim that the term hachra'a in its military context involves a conceptual failure that has taken root over the years, an initial but fundamental distinction must be made between "military hachra'a" and other forms of hachra'a, such as "halakhic [Jewish law] hachra'a," "legal hachra'a," and "hachra'a in sports." What these three fields of hachra'a have in common is the necessary presence of a judicial authority. For example, the rabbinical judge decides in halakhic hachra'a, the court judge decides in court, and the referee decides on the sports field. The society in which these judgments take place accepts the authority of all these judges, and their decisions—which rely on systems of rules—are valid and binding within the society. Hence, the act of hachra'a depends on the decision of an actual entity in context. This entity is accepted by the society in which it operates, and for its part, the society is obligated to behave according to its decisions.

In this context, it is interesting to note that Kelsay's in-depth study "The Bible and Notions of Victory in War" (2017) relates to the topic of hachra'a in the Bible in a similar manner. Kelsay puts forth the thesis of a warrior god who fights for the chosen people. This God is also the commander, takes on the role of judge, and attaches conditions to the promise of victory: obeying the laws leads to victory, while disobeying them leads to defeat. God, according to Kelsay, takes on the role of judge. Only God has the power to decide (lehachria) the wars of the Israelites against their enemies. Hence, in the arena of the Bible as well, while military victory is attributed to the Israelites, the more basic underlying assumption is that the hachra'a (that is, decision) is in God's hands only.

This understanding raises an important question in relation to military hachra'a: What is the actual and authoritative position that ostensibly decides the war on the battlefield? Who is the authority whose decision is accepted by all? Is there a military judge standing in the middle of the military campaign and deciding the war on the battlefield? Has a military (or political) entity been determined as having the authority to declare a military decision?

These questions correspond with the warning by Gabi Ben-Dor regarding the tautological danger inherent in the term hachra'a (Ben-Dor, 2001, p. 25). They are also in line with the statement by linguist Ruvik Rosenthal referring to the Hebrew term hachra'a as a gerund, exemplifying what Rosenthal calls "the curse of the verbal nouns." Rosenthal believes that this grammatical form, which illustrates that social and cultural issues also have a direct impact on the adoption of the term hachra'a in Israeli society, is too well-liked in Israeli society, for the simple reason that "verbal nouns enable them [Israeli politicians] to free themselves of personal or ministerial responsibility for every action taken in their field of responsibility. They don't do anything; the deed is done by itself." "In the field of defense," Rosenthal states, the use of verbal nouns has proven to be "an especially effective rhetorical tool" that produces headlines such as "Hachra'a imminent at Qatar Conference." This headline, which does not provide the public the information (who decided), seeks to convey the message that "the action has become a completely abstract or indefinite matter, and the person carrying out the action is unknown, [i.e.,] is not important and should be entirely ignored for the purpose of voicing the idea” (Rosenthal, 2001).

Ostensibly, it seems that the IDF Dictionary deliberates the very same question, as its definition of the term hachra'a—"breaking the enemy's power of resistance to take effective action against us, by creating a situation in which (in the assessment of the decider) the conditions exist for achieving the stated mission" (Dictionary of IDF Terms, 1998, p. 136)—in effect proves the need for a tangible entity to carry out this decision, yet such an entity is absent from the military arena.

It is interesting to note that Bartholomees (2010) also dedicates a significant portion of his article "A Theory of Victory" to the question of who actually decides who the winner is in the sports and games arena, where there is a tangible entity that decides, and who decides who has won in the arena of battle and war, where there is no such tangible entity that decides.

The fact that there is a distinct difference between all other kinds of hachra'a and military hachra'a at the very least makes military hachra'a an unusual case.

In English the Term Hachra'a Does Not Exist

The claim that the concept of hachra'a in its military context is at the very least unusual in comparison to all other meanings of the term also corresponds with the position of Yehezkel Dror, who claims he was not able to find a precise definition of the word hachra'a in its military sense in the English language or any other corresponding or similar term to the term hachra'a in the global strategic literature (Dror, 2016, p. 75). 

Israeli security researchers, including the IDF and government bodies, agree that the word hachra'a in English is "decision." Nonetheless, this consensus does not suggest that the word "decision" has a military connotation in the English language. Indeed, a dictionary check shows that the adjective form of this word (decisive) is defined in three ways: having the power or quality of deciding; determined; unquestionable.3 Hence, the meaning of the word hachra'a in English in its various forms (decision, deciding, decisive) is similar to its meaning in Hebrew in its "natural" fields (such as the courtrooms and sports fields described above, where it refers to decision, ruling, determination).

A specific examination of military contexts in English also indicates that the term is absent. Ron Tira's statement that "American documents on doctrine generally do not define and do not even use the term" (Tira, 2010, p. 17) finds expression, in part, in the notion that losing the center of gravity leads to "defeat" and in definitions of the objective of military force in war that use the term "to prevail." Hence, the expression "decisive point" is also not understood as a point of decision, but rather as a deciding point (Tira, 2010, pp. 16-17).

In addition, the phrase "military decision" in the American context refers to the United States army’s Military Decision Making Process (MDMP),4 which includes seven stages and is applied in military camps in tactical contexts. The Hebrew interpretation, which often attributes the Israeli meaning of the term to the phrase "military decision," corresponds with Moshe Sokolow’s determination in his 2013 article titled "Rahamim [generally translated as mercy, compassion, or pity] Is Not Mercy." In this article, Sokolow clarifies and emphasizes the great importance of etymological rigor in preventing what he calls the "difficulties and dangers" in the context of exchanging information and ideas when they are translated from Hebrew to English and vice versa.

The fact that there is no mention of the term hachra'a (decision/decisive) in The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military, 2001) bolsters attempts by made by Martel in his book Victory in War to replace the term "victory" with a series of alternative terms: "conquest, triumph, vanquish, subdue, subjugate, and overcome" that do not include the term decision (Martel, 2011, p. 22).

In conclusion, the word "decisive" in English can only be an adjective and not a verbal noun. Hence the word is only capable of describing (i.e., describing the victory as a "decisive victory"). Consequently, the Hebrew meaning when the adjective "decisive" (machria) is turned into a verbal noun (hachra'a) does not have a linguistic equivalent in English. This means, then, that the English phrase "decisive victory" is often interpreted in Hebrew as "the determination of victory," a phrase that differs completely from its original meaning.

Hachra'a in Sources Inspiring the IDF

Let us begin with the father of modern warfare theory, the military theoretician Carl von Clausewitz, whose influence on IDF doctrine since its establishment is undisputed (Handel, 2011). The current conclusion of the head of the Center for Military Studies at the Command and Staff College, Sagi Torgan, whereby "it is important to adopt the political and military terminology of Clausewitz" (Torgan, 2016, p. 41), shows that central elements underlying IDF doctrine were based on his teachings. These teachings were originally formulated in German and translated into English, and include a series of specific military terms that are still relevant to the IDF's security concept today. Because the Israeli security concept is based in part on doctrines written in foreign languages, there is no choice but to relate to the translated versions, despite the inherent challenges of translation, whose significance is discussed below.

Consider first the meaning of the term hachra'a as expressed in Clausewitz’s writings. In his seminal book Principles of War, the word hachra'a is used beginning with the first principle, which is formulated thus: "First and foremost, the doctrine of war deals with the ways in which you can achieve superiority in forces and physical advantages at the decisive point" (Clausewitz, 1950, p. 21). The word decisive, which is an adjective (and not a verbal noun), is not assigned the meaning of a result but merely of a description of the result. Clausewitz's perception of the meaning of the word decisive is further clarified in the formulation of the second principle: "In war, you always seek to tilt the chance of victory in your favor" (Clausewitz, 1950, p. 22). Presumably had Clausewitz attributed a military meaning to the word "decision," he would have formulated the second principle using the words "the chance of decision (and not victory) in your favor."

This assumption is further substantiated in the next (third) principle, in which Clausewitz attributes the following meaning to the term decisive: "It is the nature of war to advise the most decisive, that is, the most daring" (Clausewitz, 1950, p. 23). This principle, in which he compares the term decisive with the term daring, explicitly demonstrates the theoretical meaning he attributes to the term.

In the twelfth principle, Clausewitz returns to and summarizes the two immediately preceding principles (10-11), that together provide us with "a maxim that should take first place among all causes of victory in the modern art of war." His recommendation to "pursue one great decisive aim with force and determination" (Clausewitz, 1950, p. 31) shows again that the term decision is used as an adjective (decisive) whose function is to describe the "aim" (which is victory). This is different from the way the term is used in Hebrew—as a verbal noun (hachra'a) that acts as if it were the aim itself.

An examination of the wording of Clausewitz's other principles reinforces the argument that he relates to the term decision (hachra'a) and its various declensions as adjectives (and not as verbal nouns) and interprets its meaning in contexts that describe "the extent of a military result" and not "the military result itself."

Clausewitz goes on to describe advantages as decisive advantages and points as decisive points, and even explicitly notes: "The plan of battle must be directed toward this end [which is victory—not decision]. For it is easy to change an indecisive victory into a decisive one through energetic pursuit of the enemy” (Clausewitz, 1950, p. 36). In other words, here too the word decisive serves to describe the victory and does not function in the sense of "the victory itself."

Examining the term hachra'a in Clausewitz's writings explicitly and consistently demonstrates that he makes use of this term in three contexts: in the context of describing a victory or a defeat; in the context of [making a] decision; and in the context of a great and significant occurrence. Emerging from his writings is the understanding that while victory can be decisive, decision (hachra'a) in itself is not a military situation.

Likewise, in examining the principles of war in their strategic sense, Clausewitz remains faithful to his use of the term decisive in its original context, as a description of victory. For example, in principle 11 he speaks about the term "decisive victory" and states that sometimes a victory is "great" (meaning "decisive") and sometimes a victory is not great (meaning "not decisive"). Later he even explicitly notes: "If you remember, Most Gracious Master, the few defensive battles that history notes as campaigns that ended in victory [as opposed to 'those that ended in decision' or 'that were decided'], you will find that the conditions in which they were conducted were in the spirit of these principles" (Clausewitz, 1950, p. 32).

In conclusion, examining the term hachra'a in Clausewitz's writings explicitly and consistently demonstrates that he makes use of this term in three contexts: in the context of describing a victory or a defeat; in the context of [making a] decision; and in the context of a great and significant occurrence. Emerging from his writings is the understanding that while victory can be decisive, decision (hachra'a) in itself is not a military situation.

Unlike Clausewitz, David Ben-Gurion was not a military theoretician. However, there is no dispute that the seminal writings of the individual who founded the IDF are relevant to this day in understanding Israel's security concept—not only on the level of research and knowledge development but also for drafting current security policy.

An in-depth reading of Ben-Gurion's teachings sketches a clear and unequivocal picture of his doctrine, in which the term hachra'a means decision and/or something that is important (i.e., decisive). The IDF collected and published hundreds of pages in a book titled Uniqueness and Purpose that includes "all of the speeches of the State of Israel's first Defense Minister to the IDF, about the IDF, and about Israel's defense."5 In this book, the word hachra'a does not describe an outcome of war. Furthermore, in referring to the results the IDF achieved in battles, struggles, wars, and relations with its enemies, Ben-Gurion is careful to use the word victory—which also substantiates the thesis of this article.

For example, in discussions about the wording of the order establishing the Israel Defense Forces, Ben-Gurion stated that everything serves "one objective—victory" (Ben-Gurion, 1971, p. 36). Regarding "the language of war," Ben-Gurion said: "We should all …focus the essence of our lives, all our senses, and every fiber of our being on the one and only desire—the desire to be victorious…the true, only test is—victory in war; this is the test of our desire" (Ben-Gurion, 1971, p. 20).

In the context of military parades and lectures to officers, Ben-Gurion stated:

War is not an aim. We will not live on wars—nor on victories in war.…When we fought—we were victorious, and when we are forced to continue to fight, I believe we will be victorious again. But we do not seek wars or victories… we have spared nothing for the sake of victory. But victory is only a means and not an end. (Ben-Gurion, 1971, p. 49)

Furthermore,

The test will not end even on the day of victory, because victory in war, by its very nature and essence, is not a final victory, even if there is such a thing as final victory….We knew from the first moment that the secret to victory is not in weapons or in training and organization, although these are important and essential, but rather in the human spirit….We are victorious not by the power of the orders but by the power of the mission. (Ben-Gurion, 1971, p. 217)

Finally, in his parting letter to the IDF, Ben-Gurion ties the IDF's victories to the victories in the Bible and notes explicitly:

Upon the declaration of the state—the Israel Defense Forces, established for salvation and glory, was attacked by all the Arab armies and was victorious over all its enemies. This victory ensured our independence and made us a sovereign nation. In the War of Independence the IDF also knew failures and retreats, mild and serious, but not many armies in the world have had more glorious victories than those our young army has had the honor of winning. This episode of war will hold a place of honor in the series of great victories of the armies of our people in the days of Joshua; King David; Jeroboam son of Yoash, King of Israel; and Uzziah (Azariah) son of Amaziah, King of Judah. (Ben-Gurion, 1955, pp. 361-362)

Including all of Ben-Gurion's statements using the term victory to define a military result is beyond the scope of this article. The few examples provided here serve to illustrate and substantiate the argument. However, it is important to note that these examples are from three different decades (1940s, 50s and 60s). This indicates that the terminology chosen was not dependent on a specific zeitgeist, but rather matched the principles of the security concept as a whole.

This terminological examination has proven itself again and again in the years in which Ben-Gurion was no longer active in defining Israel’s security concept. One of many examples can be found in the lecture by Chief of Staff Haim Bar-Lev in May 1978 titled "Introduction to the Theory of War." In this lecture to students at the Command and Staff College, the Chief of Staff discussed fundamental questions in the art of war through an examination of the wars of the IDF. The lecture included an in-depth discussion of fundamental military concepts, including the essence of war and the achievement victory in war, and examined these concepts in light of the IDF's wars (with emphasis on the War of Attrition, which occurred during the period Bar-Lev headed the General Staff, and the Yom Kippur War, when he commanded the southern front). Throughout this lecture, which focused specifically on "the results of war," the word hachra'a was entirely absent from the Chief of Staff’s lexicon. Clearly Bar-Lev, like Ben-Gurion, made sure to use the term victory (and not hachra'a) in order to describe military results. For example, he described the political conclusion of the War of Attrition as follows:

The political conclusion was that despite the Israeli victory in the Six Day War, the existence of Israel must not be accepted…This conclusion surprised Israel because it was logical to assume that after the great rout suffered by Egypt and after the unequivocal demonstration of Israel’s military advantage, the Egyptians would look for the solution in the political arena. (Bar-Lev, 1978, p. 4)

Bar-Lev later described the military conclusions drawn from each of the wars and mentioned the Egyptian doctrines and conclusions reached in consultation with the Russian advisors. In these contexts as well, Bar-Lev did not use the term hachra'a at all in order to describe the aims, intentions or results of warfare.

As in Ben-Gurion's writings, in Bar-Lev's lectures the word hachra'a was almost completely and sweepingly absent from the war terminology and from the goals and results of the various wars, indicating that this omission was not incidental, but rather deliberate.

How the Term Hachra'a Became Embedded, Erroneously, in Military Contexts

Many paths led to the erroneous entrenchment of the term hachra'a, some known and some unknown. Obviously, this did not occur at any specific point in time but rather was a gradual process. Moreover, there was not one determining factor, but rather a variety of overlapping factors. Several examples can illustrate how this occurred.

To this day no one knows the identity of the person who formulated the essence of the doctrine (and its three-word summary, including hachra'a). Therefore, it is also impossible to know whether this anonymous writer had certain ideological motivations or personal conceptualizations, and if so, what they were.

We begin with the sources of Ben-Gurion's security concept, which unquestionably shaped the Israeli military doctrine. This doctrine incorporates Israel’s security doctrine, which determines the overall organization of the IDF, including preparing for and waging wars, campaigns, and battles in accordance with orders from the high command.

This doctrine, which is based mainly on the notion of an "iron wall" formulated by Ze'ev Jabotinsky in the 1920s, developed "as an approach commonly known as 'deterrence, warning, and decision [harta'a, hatra'a v'hachra'a]'" (Henkin, 2018, p. 17). It is no wonder, then, that over the years many researchers and military figures adopted the term hachra'a as an inseparable part of the military doctrine. Yet as Henkin indicates in his study, to this day no one knows the identity of the person who formulated the essence of the doctrine (and its three-word summary, including hachra'a). Therefore, it is also impossible to know whether this anonymous writer had certain ideological motivations or personal conceptualizations, and if so, what they were. This understanding takes on new meaning when we examine Ben-Gurion’s security concept in depth and realize that Ben-Gurion himself never speaks about hachra'a in the sense of a military result. Furthermore, the only time he uses the term hachra'a (as a verbal noun) is in the sentence: "A clear and permanent hachra'a [in the sense of making a decision] is required" (Ben-Gurion, 1981 [1953], p. 8).  

Not only does the document in question not mention the term hachra'a even once in the context of the desired result of war, throughout the article the results of wars are referred to again and again using the term victory. For example, in discussing army issues Ben-Gurion emphasizes that "the main question of course is: 1) is a war expected; 2) can we stand our ground and be victorious" (p. 2). Later he notes that "every military expert knows that the morale—in Hebrew the spirit—of the army is the primary, if not the only, element in victory” (p. 9). He further emphasizes: “If we again face a war with the Arabs—and no one in the world can promise us that this war will not occur, all of our chances of being victorious (and I certainly believe in victory) depend on the extent of our fighters’ morale” (p. 10).

Finally, the most unequivocal example illustrates the claim of this article, not only from a terminological perspective but also from a conceptual one:

We must not depend on the victories of the past, and we must not rely on the weakness of the enemy. The former victor can fail in the future, as happened to the French in World War II. The French relied on their experience in World War I, and the Germans learned from their failure in that same war, and prepared for war under new conditions, and if not for America, England, and Russia, France would have been wiped off the map of the world’s independent nations. (p. 5)

Another reason that may have led to the erroneous entrenchment of the term hachra'a lies in mistakes in translation. In this context, it is important to distinguish between difficulties in translation that emerge from cultural and national meanings attached to a certain term in a certain language and are lost in translation to another language, and mistakes that stem from fundamentally incorrect translation. Translation mistakes of both kinds are so common that the American military historian Christopher Bassford, who for the past few decades has managed a website about Clausewitz,6 notes that his keen awareness of the distortion of Clausewitz's original intentions is what led him to refrain completely from relying on Clausewitz's translated writings in his many studies.7

Furthermore, the website about Clausewitz distinguishes between translations into English directly from the German source (although Vom Kriege's various editions differ significantly) and foreign editions that rely on other translations (e.g., a Vietnamese version based on a French edition and early translations into Chinese based on Japanese or French versions). The website manager explicitly warns that in all of these cases, it is impossible to escape from the limitations based on the influence of time and place, or from technical mistakes, interpretations motivated by political fear or personal aspirations, controversial conceptual beliefs based on conceptual confusion, ideologically based attempts at counter-persuasion, and in certain cases—completely false beliefs.

For example, in the Israeli context, Clausewitz's book The Principles of War was translated from English to Hebrew by Shimon Yiftah. The publisher notes that "the English translation is deficient in many places in terms of accuracy, understanding, and being faithful to the original (necessitating thorough secondary editing of the first Hebrew version, which was translated at the time from the English version)" (Clausewitz, 1950, p. 6). This comment joins the fact that Yiftah's training was in nuclear physics and not in translation. In effect, of the eight books Yiftah wrote (all of them in Hebrew and all on nuclear physics), Principles of War was the only book he ever translated. Hence, as talented as he was, it appears only natural to expect various translation difficulties throughout the book and to accept them with a measure of understanding.

For example, Clausewitz's statement that “the most important thing in war will always be the art of defeating our opponents in combat” (Clausewitz, 1943, p. 17) was translated from the German original (Clausewitz, 1834, p. 213), in which the meaning of the German word beſiegen is none other than "defeat" or havasa in Hebrew. Yet in the sentence in question, the word was translated into Hebrew using the term hachra'a: "The most important thing in war will always be the art of [deciding] our opponents in combat" (Clausewitz, 1950, p. 27). Hence it is obvious that translating this statement in a way that is faithful to the original would have yielded a completely different meaning (the art of havasa [defeat] of our opponents in battle). Indeed, unlike the term hachra'a, the terms defeat and victory describe a military result.

Another example appears in in the following sentence from Chapter 4, titled "The Existence of These Principles in Times of War": "If we lend our ear to all these difficulties, as Frederick II called them, we shall soon nichara [the passive form of hachra’a], and we will collapse under the weight” (Clausewitz, 1950, p. 87). Ostensibly the expression "we shall soon nichara" attributes a military result to the term hachra'a, but in this case as well, the choice of the word nichara in the translation into Hebrew is not compatible with the definition in the Dictionary of IDF Terms. Here this is a clear translation error, as checking the wording of the original principle in English shows unequivocally that Clausewitz is not speaking about hachra'a [decision] at all, but rather about succumbing (and thus uses the word succumb): “If we lend our ear to all these difficulties, as Frederick II called them, we shall soon succumb completely…we shall be reduced to weakness and inactivity” (Clausewitz, 1943, p. 52). In this case too, the German original proves that the precise word is not nichara, we shall be decided, but rather nikana, we shall succumb, from a different etymological root.

Hence, in this case too, if we had sought to convey to Hebrew-speaking Israeli society, including the IDF, the literal meaning of the principle, we would have worded it as "we shall soon nikana [succumb]," whose practical, and not only implied, meaning is completely different from that resulting from using the term "we shall soon nichara [be decided]" when speaking about a military result.

Because in German there is an intentional and explicit distinction between the terms, the two above examples provide evidence that the source of the meaning of the term hachra'a in the context of a military result is an inadequate and insufficiently precise translation. The fact that this term was once translated in the context of "defeating" and another time in the context of "succumbing" not only connects the terms but also directly influences the Israeli interpretation in general, and the military conception in particular.

One example among many is Gadi Eisenkot's attempt to implement the content of the IDF Strategy document as Israel's current security concept. This attempt also led him to refer to the term hachra'a and to state explicitly: "The meaning of this [systemic and tactical] hachra'a creates a reality in which the adversary's capability is eliminated, such that it reaches a situation of helplessness or physical destruction and succumbs" (Eisenkot & Siboni, 2019, p. 50).

The linguistic confusion that appears in this explanation corresponds well with the choice of terms in the translation into Hebrew. In the original, a situation was defined in which the enemy succumbs. This was translated into Hebrew in a way that was not sufficiently precise, suggesting that the enemy huchra [was decided or overcome]. This finding may substantiate the assumption that if the translations of Clausewitz's terms had been precise, they may have clarified the distinction between "succumbed" and "was decided or overcome" according to the definitions in the Dictionary of IDF Terms, possibly yielding the following wording: On these levels of operation, it is necessary to subdue the enemy. The meaning of subduing is creating a reality in which the adversary's capability is eliminated, it has reached a situation of helplessness or of physical destruction, and thus succumbs. The definition of the term kni'a—succumbing or surrendering—in the Dictionary of IDF Terms also describes a military result and thus fits well with this meaning.8

Another kind of lack of clarity is liable to develop in cases in which there are no translation obstacles but there are other influences, such as worldviews, personal perspectives, and ideological bents, that find expression in biased conceptual formulation.

Examples of this can be found in Kober's book (1995), in which among the ways he substantiates his arguments regarding the term military hachra'a is by using a series of cases of reliance on the term victory. For example, Kober bases the argument that will and capability contribute to "generating the hachra'a" (p. 27) on a quotation attributed to Clausewitz that actually relates to the influence of victory on the course of the war. According to Clausewitz, there are influences that "always appear with every victory…and they increase as the size of the victory increases" (Leonard, 1977, p. 149).

Kober also begins the section titled "The Hachra'a Process and the Threshold of Hachra'a" with the words: "Clausewitz described the process an army undergoes until it is muchra [decided, overcome]" (p. 53, in Leonard, 1977, p. 148). Yet it is "the influence of victory" that is discussed throughout the reference (to Volume A, Book 4, Chapter 10 of Clausewitz) (Leonard, 1977, pp. 147-149).

In the chapter that analyzes the "hachra'a process," Kober relies on Bernard Brodie's book War and Politics, "which emphasizes the psychological necessity of lehachria [deciding]… to achieve hachra'a in war." Yet Brodie himself speaks in terms of victory, and to his wording "the total commitment to victory," Kober attaches the word hachra'a in square brackets (Kober, 1995, p. 45). The subsequent substantiation as well, in which the German army is pushed "to continue fighting even after the battles of 1914-1915 showed the lack of a chance of achieving German hachra'a in the war," relies on Gordon Craig’s research conclusion that "in stubbornly rejecting any opinion that complete victory was impossible." Kobler adds his own interpretation to this by adding the words "in the sense of hachra'a" in square brackets (Kober, 1995, p. 46).

The fact that the term hachra'a is explained, demonstrated, and justified repeatedly using the term victory speaks for itself.

Additional examples can be found in the second part of the book, which discusses the Israeli case. For example, the demand "to understand that in fact we have very little time lehachria [to decide, overcome] the enemy" (Kober, 1995, p. 160) is based on Moshe Dayan's statement, which is phrased using the term victory. Later Kober relates to hachra'a of the enemy by means of the air force, "which is capable of creating the conditions for hachra'a on land." He bases this on Ben-Gurion's statement that "the control [of the air force] in the air ensures us victory more than any other factor" (Kober, 1995, p. 178). In addition, the statement that Operation Horev was "aimed at completing the hachra'a process" and that "the order of the day of the southern front commander on the day the operation began (December 22) reflects Israel’s desire to achieve final hachra'a in the war" is based on a statement by Netanel Lorch, which speaks of "a final and decisive victory over the invader" (Kober, 1995, p. 193).

The fact that the term hachra'a is explained, demonstrated, and justified repeatedly using the term victory speaks for itself. An examination of various aspects of the term hachra'a, including through a series of explanations that rely explicitly on the term victory, shows the similar meaning of the two terms, or at least the conceptual confusion between them.

Along with linguistic and translation issues, reasons tied to cultural and national processes contributed to the penetration of the term hachra'a in the sense of a military result. For example, Eitan Shamir attributes the evolution of the term hachra'a in the IDF to an ideological and image-related response to the terms "strategy of annihilation" (in German, niederwerfungsstrategie) and "strategy of exhaustion" (in German, ermattungsstrategie), which were cultivated in the late 19^th century by the German military writer Hans Delbrück and adopted by all of the European and American armies. According to Shamir, public and ideological connotations caused the IDF to gradually move away from the term annihilation. These motivations are what led the IDF to look for ways to defeat the enemy while minimizing IDF losses, and to this end they adopted the unique term hachra'a (Shamir, 2017, p. 22). Ido Hecht, in his article "Mechanisms of Defeating—How To Win in War?" describes the "doctrine of hachra'a by means of annihilation," pinpointing the 1990s as a period in which the IDF began gradually moving away from striving for large-scale annihilation as an expression of military hachra'a (Hecht, 2004, p. 6).

Over time, ideological assumptions also arose. Moreover, additional motivations, both overt and covert, emerged that were influenced by political, diplomatic, military, and social processes and that may have led to the adoption of the term hachra'a as an alternative to the term victory in its traditional sense. For example, in her article "The Fog of Victory," Gabriella Blum argues that since the clear victory in 1967, it seems that no one has updated Israeli society that the term victory in its modern sense is far from the term victory in its traditional sense, the one that Israelis were raised on (Blum, 2013, p. 418). For Blum, this "absence of updating" is what makes it difficult for Israeli society to define the results of war as victory in the modern era. She claims that in this era victory in war depends in part on political and economic factors and civilian forces—and not only on answering the question of whether or not the military objectives defined at the beginning or during the operation have been fulfilled.

In contrast, Gabi Siboni explicitly relates to this point in this context:

As far as one can see, it is unlikely that the Six Day War and its confluence of conditions will ever recur. [Therefore] a new conceptual framework is required to coordinate expectations among the IDF and the political and the civilian echelons….The strategic discourse in Israel must rid itself of concepts such as quick and absolute victory and decision, or at least redefine them in the context of the present threat. (Siboni, 2009, p.47)

The fact that Siboni links the term hachra'a to the term victory, including in relation to the result of the Six Day War, is one more example among many that indicates the terminological confusion between the two terms that has apparently developed over the years. Yet while Siboni proposes looking for alternative definitions, a contrary view contends that the traditional definitions should actually be preserved. For example, in their book Navy SEALs, Willink and Babin consciously, explicitly, and intentionally define the Battle of Ramadi, which was the heart of the rebel area and considered the "decisive battle" (as they define it) over the Anbar Governorate, as a victory in the full sense of the word. This is despite the clear understanding that this was “not a military victory in the traditional sense of the word,” nor did they have any expectation that the enemy that they fought against would succumb, or that as a result of the fighting, peace agreements would be signed. Rather, victory here means just that Iraq would become a relatively safer and more stable country (Willink & Babin, 2015).

On the linguistic level, the American terminology provided in this example further strengthens the article's claim that the term hachra'a does not have the meaning of a military result and again demonstrates that the result of the war is defined using the term victory (and not hachra'a) and using the verb "was subdued" (and not huchra). On the conceptual level, this example demonstrates well that while the Israeli concept has chosen to relinquish the term victory and replace it with new definitions for a new situation, the American concept has sought to adapt the new situation to the original definitions, including defining victory as a term that describes a military result. In this way it has consciously raised the possibility of continuing to evaluate military achievements using the term victory. This decision also involves preserving the awareness of victory as a military result, and of course this awareness likewise affects national and social resilience.

Conclusion: Hachra'a is None Other than Victory

Bogie Ya'alon’s stated expectation that leaders should not assume that longstanding practices are necessarily correct by virtue of their longevity (Ya'alon, 2007) is echoed in this article by the understanding that while the term hachra'a has been used for years to define a military result, this fact does not necessarily indicate that the term hachra'a actually defines a military result.

Indeed, this understanding has been substantiated in principle. The fact that dozens of military and national security figures have discussed and continue to discuss the collection of definitions and meanings that have accumulated over the past few decades regarding the term hachra'a speaks for itself, pointing to an inherent lack of clarity in the term hachra'a in the sense of a military result. These are joined by scores of professional discussions focusing on the term hachra'a and linking its definitions with the term victory, thus underscoring the confusion between the meanings of these terms.

In the seven weeks during which Ben-Gurion took upon himself to reexamine the army's situation and the security needs, he came to the conclusion "that the means, the forces and the thought habits of the members of the Haganah do not meet the needs of the future. And the most difficult thing then was to change the thought habits of our best men in the Haganah" (Ben-Gurion, 1981 [1953], p. 2).

An echo of this conclusion appears in Ya'alon's claim that "the military system is prone to conservativism, rigidity, and adherence to preconceptions" (Ya'alon, 2007, p. 11). To a certain extent this may explain why a prolonged period of time and the awareness of the military and security leadership are not sufficient for ending the terminological confusion that has developed between the two terms. Furthermore, this may indicate why discussions on the issue focus repeatedly on the question of the differences between the two terms rather than on the question of why two different terms with the same meaning have emerged.

Resolving the terminological confusion means relinquishing the term hachra'a and consciously choosing the term victory instead. The significance of this is complex in itself. First and foremost it requires accepting the statement that "the question of what meaning is should not be answered, unless we are ready to accept as an answer the statement that meaning is what people mean".

This article sought to breach the conventional boundaries in order to prove that the term hachra'a in its military context does not express a clear meaning, and that the damage caused by this mainly affects the term victory. In my opinion, the collection of examples presented above are only some of the elements that led to the gradual but consistent adoption of the term hachra'a in the sense of a military result, and to conceptual confusion that has taken root. Yet the reasons that led to the entrenchment of the term hachra'a in military terminology are secondary to the implications and consequences of this process, the main one being the obscuring of the meaning of the term victory. This obfuscation shows that the conceptual failure is not only expressed in the IDF's language, but also, and more critically, in the IDF's doctrine. Hence, the main contribution of this article is to restore the meaning of the term victory to its rightful place in its military context.

Resolving the terminological confusion means relinquishing the term hachra'a and consciously choosing the term victory instead. The significance of this is complex in itself. First and foremost it requires accepting the statement that "the question of what meaning is should not be answered, unless we are ready to accept as an answer the statement that meaning is what people mean" (Strauss, 1977, p. 127). This also echoes Clausewitz's original message, whereby there is no point splitting hairs about one concept or another, and it would not be right to relate to theory as instructions, as the principles do not exhaust the entire theory and their purpose is not "to provide prescriptions for victory in battle, but rather to provide the fundamental concepts that will enable any military leader to formulate the 'prescriptions' that are suitable for the specific military problem that he is facing” (Y. B. Y., 1988, p. 17). This message fully corresponds with Chief of Staff Kochavi's directive, which was published as these lines were written. According to Kochavi, "the core of the change that needs to happen" is to abandon the term proportionality [which contains a cautious or minimal meaning, as he defines it] and replace it with the concept of relativity" (Kochavi, 2021).

This approach strengthens this article's main proposal: to abandon a term that does not faithfully serve the military interests in favor of a different term, whose meaning improves or clarifies the security concept. That is, the term hachra'a in the sense of a military result should be relinquished, thus allowing the term victory in all its glory to express the meaning of a military result.

In practice, even if there are those who oppose this approach, they will have difficulty ignoring the reality in the field, which speaks for itself, as hachra'a is no longer defined “as the only aim of the military campaign, and instead of it comes victory. In order to achieve victory, the political leadership must define it unequivocally in advance, and in terms that are understandable to both sides” (Michael & Even, 2016, p. 34).

This reality—which is expressed well in the IDF Strategy document (2015) and in its updated version (2018), and more clearly outlined in the approach of the current Chief of Staff, Aviv Kochavi—is what has laid a new foundation for military-political relations, whose essence is none other than clearly defining the meaning of the term victory (Michael et al., 2020).

 

---

References

Amidror, Y. (2001). Interim summary. In Between "decision" and "victory"—Joint Symposium of the Center for the Study of National Security and the National Security College, IDF on January 28, 2001. Studies in National Security, 2 (pp. 113-117) [in Hebrew].

Amidror, Y. (2006). Can an army defeat terrorism?" Maarachot, 408, 6-11 [in Hebrew].

Baidatz, Y., & Adamsky, D. (2014). The development of the Israeli approach to deterrence: A critical discussion of its theoretical and practical aspects. Eshtonot, 8. Research Center, National Security College [in Hebrew].

Bar-Lev, H. (1978). The war and its objectives against the backdrop of the IDF's wars. Maarachot, 266, 2-8 [in Hebrew].

Bartholomees, B. (2010). A theory of victory. In B. Bartholomees (Ed.), Theory of war and strategy (Vol. 1, pp. 79-94). US Army War College; Strategic Studies Institute.

Ben-Dor, G. (2001). Studies and issues in Israel's theory of decision. In Between "decision" and "victory"—Joint Symposium of the Center for the Study of National Security and the National Security College, IDF on January 28, 2001. Studies in National Security, 2 (pp. 24-51) [in Hebrew].

Ben-Gurion, D. (1955). Army and security. Maarachot, Ministry of Defense Publishing [in Hebrew].

Ben-Gurion, D. (1971). Uniqueness and purpose—Speeches about Israel's security. IDF. General Staff, Manpower Directorate, Information Department [in Hebrew].

Ben-Gurion, D. (1981, from 1953). Army and state. Maarachot, 279-280, 2-11 [in Hebrew]

Ben-Israel, I. (2001). Third session: Technology and decision. In Between "decision" and "victory"—Joint Symposium of the Center for the Study of National Security and the National Security College, IDF on January 28, 2001. Studies in National Security, 2 (pp. 83-90) [in Hebrew].

Blum, G. (2013). The fog of victory. The European Journal of International Law, 24(1), 391–421.

Chorev, M. (2017). The military aspects of limited operations. in A. Inbar (Ed.), The IDF's little wars, Studies in the Security of the Middle East, 128 (pp. 93-122). Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies [in Hebrew].

Clausewitz, von, C. (1834). Vom Kriege. Bd. 3 Berlin. bei Ferdinand Dümmler.

Clausewitz, von, C. (1943). Principles of War. Translated and edited by Hans W. Gatzke, H. Wilhelm &. J. Lane.

Clausewitz, von, C. (1950). Principles of war (trans. S. Yiftah). Maarachot, Ministry of Defense publishing house [in Hebrew].

Dictionary of IDF Terms. (1998). Ed. S. Hoffman. Operations Directorate, Theory and Training [in Hebrew].

Dror, Y. (2016). Jewish-Israeli perspective on defense and statecraft: Thoughts following the Chief of Staff's document, IDF strategy. Jewish People Policy Institute [in Hebrew].

Eisenkot, G., & Siboni, G. (2019). Guidelines for Israel's national security strategy, Institute for National Security Studies, Memorandum no. 196 [in Hebrew].

Ezov, A. (2020). Decision: Who won the Yom Kippur War? Kinneret Zmora-Dvir [in Hebrew].

Halutz, D. (2001). Air power as a decision variable. In Between "decision" and "victory"—Joint Symposium of the Center for the Study of National Security and the National Security College, IDF on January 28, 2001. Studies in National Security, 2 (pp. 91-100) [in Hebrew].

Handel, M. (2011). Great classical military thinkers. Maarachot[in Hebrew].

Hecht, A. (2004). Mechanisms of defeat: How to win a war? Zarkor, 11 [in Hebrew].

Henkin, Y. (2018). "A great toll for our blood”: Israeli defense doctrines, from the reprisal operations to Operation Protective Edge. Bein Haktavim, 15, 17-41 [Hebrew].

Hom, A. R., O'Driscoll, C., & Mills K. (Eds.) (2017). Moral victories: The ethics of winning wars. Oxford.

IDF Strategy. (2015). IDF website. https://bit.ly/3t9SxA9 [in Hebrew].

IDF Strategy. (2018). IDF website. https://www.idf.il/media/34416/strategy.pdf [in Hebrew].

Kelsay, J. (2017). “Let God rise up!”: The Bible and notions of victory in war. In A. R. Hom, C. O'Driscoll, & K. Mills (Eds.), Moral victories: The ethics of winning wars. Oxford.

Kober, A. (1995). Hachra'a: Military decision in Arab-Israeli wars 1948-1982. Maarachot [in Hebrew].

Kober, A. (2001). Victory and decision in modern and postmodern wars. In Between "decision" and "victory"—Joint Symposium of the Center for the Study of National Security and the National Security College, IDF on January 28, 2001. Studies in National Security, 2 (pp. 13-23) [in Hebrew].

Kober, A. (2018). The 1967 war model: Changes and challenges. In G. Siboni, K. Michael, & A. Kurz (Eds.), Six days, fifty years: The June 1967 war and its aftermath (pp. 149-161). Institute for National Security Studies.

Kochavi, A. (2021, January 26). Chief of Staff's Speech—14^th Annual International Conference of the Institute for National Security Studies

. https://www.inss.org.il/14th-conference-opening-event/

Leonard, R. A. (Ed.). (1977). On war: A brief guide to Clausewitz (trans. A. Lotem). Maarachot [in Hebrew].

Martel, W. C. (2007, 2011). Victory in war: Foundations of modern strategy (revised and expanded edition). Cambridge University Press.

Meridor, D., & Eldadi, R. (2019). Israel’s national security doctrine: The report of the committee on the formulation of the national security doctrine (Meridor Committee), Ten Years Later. Institute for National Security Studies, Memorandum no. 187.

Michael, K., & Even, S. (2016). Principles of the Israeli political-military discourse based on the recent IDF Strategy document. Military and Strategic Affairs, 8(1), 19-40.

Michael, K., Regev, L., and Kimchi, D. (2020). Containment over decision: Internalizing the limits of political militarization in Israel. Strategic Assessment, 23(4), 18-35.

Mofaz, S. (2001). The decision doctrine. In Between "decision" and "victory"—Joint Symposium of the Center for the Study of National Security and the National Security College, IDF on January 28, 2001. Studies in National Security, 2 (pp. 119-140) [in Hebrew].

O'Driscoll, C. (2019). Victory. Oxford University Press.

Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military (2001). Oxford University Press.

Rosenthal, R. (2001, November 23). The curse of the gerund. The Linguistic Arena. https://bit.ly/3u9KAfv [Hebrew]

Shafir, H. (2001). On the margins of the symposium: On decision. In Between "decision" and "victory"—Joint Symposium of the Center for the Study of National Security and the National Security College, IDF on January 28, 2001. Studies in National Security, 2 (pp. 141-143) [in Hebrew].

Shamir, E. (2017). Change versus continuity in Israel's security coctrine: Conceptual examination in the face of a changing environment. In A. Inbar (Ed.), The IDF's little wars, Studies in the Security of the Middle East, 128 (pp. 13-30). Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies [in Hebrew].

Shoval, L. (2019, March 4). "Lethal army”: The victory workshop that the Chief of Staff initiated begins today. Yisrael Hayom. https://www.israelhayom.co.il/article/637829 [in Hebrew].

Siboni, G. (2009). War and victory. Military and Strategic Affairs, 1(3), 39-49.

Sokolow, M. (2013). Rahamim is not mercy: Etymological rigor and teaching Torah. In Y. Benziman (Ed.). In the plural: Hebrew as a language of culture (pp. 194-200). Van Leer Institute and Kibbutz HaMeuhad [in Hebrew].

Strauss, M. (1977). Meaning and carriers of meaning: Elements of expression, symbolism, and signification. Sifriat Poalim [in Hebrew]

Tamari, D. (2016). Is this a strategic document and does the IDF have social responsibility? In M. Elran, G. Siboni, & K. Michael (Eds.), IDF Strategy in the perspective of national security (pp. 147-153). Institute for National Security Studies [in Hebrew].

Tira, R. (2010). The nature of war: Conflicting paradigms and Israeli military effectiveness. Sussex Academic Press and INSS.

Torgan, S. (2016). From Liddell Hart to Clausewitz: The IDF changes its doctrine. Maarachot, 465, 36-41 [in Hebrew].

Wegman, Y. (1999). The “Seeping Deep” and the “Dynamic Buffer." Maarachot, 366-367, 90-91 [in Hebrew].

Willink, J., & Babin, L. (2015). Extreme ownership: How U.S. Navy SEALs lead and win St. Martin’s Press.

Y. B. Y. (1998). Where did Clausewitz go wrong? Clausewitz and the Principles of War in light of modern technology. Maarachot, 311, 16-25 [ in Hebrew].

Ya'alon, M. (2001). Victory and decision in a limited conflict." In Between "decision" and "victory"—Joint Symposium of the Center for the Study of National Security and the National Security College, IDF on January 28, 2001. Studies in National Security, 2 (pp. 75-81) [in Hebrew].

Ya'alon, M. (2007). Military leadership. In P. Yehezkeli (Ed.), On military leadership (pp. 716-717). Ministry of Defense [in Hebrew].

Yanai, S. (2001). Dilemmas in force buildup in a limited war and in a big war. In Between "decision" and "victory"—Joint Symposium of the Center for the Study of National Security and the National Security College, IDF on January 28, 2001. Studies in National Security, 2 (pp. 101-112) [in Hebrew].

Zigdon, Y. (2008). Much fire, little thought. Maarachot, 420-421, 44-53 [in Hebrew].