Technical Note: "Quiet for Quiet" was the Concept Which Failed

Technical Note: “Quiet for Quiet” was the Concept Which Failed
Dr. Aaron Lerner, 30 January 2024

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview with British TV
channel TalkTV that he was not a party to the failed “concept” responsible
for the slaughter of Israelis on October 7th, because he never trusted
Hamas.

That was not the “concept” whose failure cost us so dearly on October 7th.

“Quiet for quiet” failed.

And it is critical for policymakers to understand this.

Because to this day, they yearn for “quiet for quiet.”

It is important to understand what “quiet” means under “quiet for quiet.”

Quiet = do not shoot (too much).

This is what is allowed under “quiet for quiet”:

1. Importation, development and mass production of any and all weapons. This
activity includes openly testing weapons systems and manufacturing weapons
and armaments. Manufacturing facilities that are identified are recorded in
the “target bank,” as are armories, but not destroyed.

2. Any and all training exercises are allowed in preparation for attacking
Israel.

3. The erection of forward positions, both for the purposes of observation
and command and control and attack against Israel, are recorded in the
“target bank” and not touched.

4. Major civil works (tunnels, etc.) to be used against Israel are recorded
in the “target bank” and not touched.

These rules applied with few exceptions both towards the Gaza Strip and
Lebanon.

In the case of Lebanon, the results were particularly obvious over the
years, as Israel had an open policy that weapons on the way to Lebanon from
Syria could be destroyed while they were still in Syria but not touched once
they crossed into Lebanon.

If the above activities had been designated as “noise,” the situation today
would be completely different.

“Quiet for quiet” is the policy for those who are interested only in the
next moment.

It is like a CEO whose bonus is based on the performance of his company’s
stock that quarter rather than its long-term success.

To be clear: Mr. Netanyahu was in good company embracing “quiet for quiet.”

Everyone around him embraced it.

The fantasy that our enemies were “deterred” rather than “patient” was a
commonly held belief.

Unless policymakers recognize this fatal conceptual flaw, we are doomed to
repeat it in the future.

________________________________________
IMRA – Independent Media Review and Analysis

Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on
Arab-Israeli relations

Website: www.imra.org.il