The Campaign for the Home Front

Introduction

On the night of July 22, 2014, Sergeant Sean Carmeli, who was killed during Operation Protective Edge, was laid to rest in Haifa. Sean hailed from Texas, and immigrated to Israel without his family to serve in the IDF. The announcement of Sean's death in combat in Gaza as a lone soldier provoked strong public emotions, and more than 20,000 people attend the funeral.[1]

A mass event of this kind, during an emergency and within the range of enemy missiles, should not be taken lightly. It raises many questions regarding daily routine on the Israeli home front. For example, what tools enable those in charge of safety on the home front to exercise their responsibility? What could assist them in providing safety during such an event? What is the equilibrium between the desire to maintain normal daily routine and the duty to protect the public from possible mass casualties?

We must sharpen our focus on these questions, and investigate the appropriate calculations in providing protection during this type of event from the anticipated threats (mainly high trajectory fire), to determine what would allow us to act appropriately to meet the challenge.

Many dilemmas emerge in times of war, especially around the tension between a desire for full protection on the home front and the desire to maintain the fabric of daily life. Should we allow the opening of supermarkets and for what hours? Should schools open, and under which conditions? Should concerts be held? Should we allow cafés and pubs to operate? Should soccer games be held? Should seaports operate? These dilemmas land on a commander's desk at the Home Front Command during emergencies, requiring him to deal with the challenge of maintaining the public’s daily routine alongside the challenge of saving life. These dilemmas become more acute as an operation continues and the pressure and need build to go about one’s routine as much as possible.

Conflicts in recent years have been characterized by changes in the combat environment and by fire on the home front during relatively long periods of combat. The combination of this type of conflict and missile defense systems (and their future development) created a situation in which it is possible to identify the potential for a different policy. The gap between the intensity of conflicts (which is dropping) and the quality of defense (which is rising) now enables a continuation of daily routine during emergencies. In this context, different ways of coping and decision-making are required. This article will discuss the effect of this phenomenon, which enables us to operate differently when defending the home front, the opportunities that arise, and the accompanying challenges and expected future trends. The changing nature of conflicts, as reflected in recent years, and the development of active defense, are the basis of the following discussion.

Since the 1990s Israel’s enemies have employed a strategy that focuses on causing civilian casualties and paralyzing the Israeli home front. They continue to invest considerable effort in these attempts. In recent conflicts, and likely in future ones, success is measured by an accumulation of achievements (in points), not by a quick and unambiguous decisive defeat (a knockout). Therefore, the need is growing to succeed on several levels of simultaneous direct and indirect struggle - at the frontlines, in contact with the enemy, at the home front, in the media and in cyberspace. At the home front, there is a growing necessity to prevent casualties, while allowing the continuity of the populations’ daily routine and the functioning of the national and civil systems in a manner as close to normal as possible.

Although the importance of successful management of the home front during a security crisis is obvious, there are no clear definitions and metrics for such success. Some home front objectives are defined, like support for the war effort, providing maneuvering room for decision-makers and saving lives,[2] but they do not define success clearly and unambiguously. For example, great value is ascribed to the uninterrupted activity of the Israeli economy during emergencies. Damage to the Israeli economy during a confrontation can be measured in several respects, such as loss of gross national product (GDP) due to a decrease in productivity (absence from work by reservists, parents remaining at home with their children), a decline in labor productivity (business’ closing), reduction in demand (domestic and foreign tourism, dining and entertainment services), damage to infrastructure and buildings etc.[3]

Alongside the economic damage from the impact of rockets and missiles on property and human lives, there are great benefits to a campaign from continued economic activity. It benefits the prevailing narrative adopted by the public and the national security. Most noticeable is that public resilience depends largely on the ability to maintain a reasonable daily routine during a crisis, while enabling the public systems to function and provide the necessities of life - food, water and medicine and the full functioning of the economy. Thus, we may understand Isaac Ben-Israel’s argument that Israel's defense leadership failed to understand during the Second Lebanon War (2006), that the main damage caused to the home front was social and economic, and not human life or property.[4]

Achieving a high level of protection requires a shutdown of the civilian and public systems, and the evacuation of the population into protected spaces. In contrast, the desire to maintain routine activities and the need to enable the functioning of various systems entails risks during emergencies. It should be emphasized that success on the home front has a considerable influence which may contribute to the overall achievements in a campaign. This success is measured in two respects - seemingly contradictory but in fact complementary - in preventing casualties and in allowing civilian systems to function “normally,” even routinely.

Currently, the understanding is growing that due to changes in the reality of war, both in terms of the challenge and response, the importance of the local dimension to the success of the home front is increasing. In this article, we wish to refine and emphasize this argument: there is a necessity to manage the tension between protection levels and the maintenance of routine activities by strengthening and providing tools to the local echelon of the Home Front Command (District level). These tools do not yet exist. This is based on the understanding that this is the level that bridges the national context and interests, and the tactical challenges.

We will discuss this on two levels - at the operational level - the challenge and potential in developing the operational level of home front defense, and at the strategic level - the link between defending the home front and the national security concept, and possible achievements in future conflicts. We will deal with this issue while looking at several aspects of home front defense. We will discuss the current and developing challenges to the home front, present the tensions between protection and maintaining routine, evaluate which institutional level within the home front would enable the management of these tensions, and finally discuss the growing context between defending the home front, and Israel’s national security concept.

The Israeli Home Front as an Element in the Enemy’s Combat Concept

Attacking the home front is not a new phenomenon in the history of war in general, and Israel isn’t an exception. During the War of Independence (1948), aircraft from Iraq, Syria, and primarily Egypt, attacked the Israeli home front. Many cities were attacked, including Haifa, Jerusalem, Ramat Gan and Tel Aviv. In total, 172 soldiers and civilians were killed on the home front and 321 were injured.[5] Attacks on the home front continued, such as the firing of Katyusha rockets at Kiryat Shmona from 1969, but in Israel’s campaigns, from the 1956 Sinai War to the 1982 Operation Peace for Galilee, this type of fire was relatively insignificant. The main objective of attacking the home front was to motivate the civilian population to influence decision-makers. Nevertheless, during the War of Independence and in the other wars, attacking the home front was relatively a secondary objective, and the enemies’ main efforts focused on combat at the front. 

In recent years, we have seen the development of a reverse situation, turning the home front into a major target. An analysis of the approaches to confronting Israel demonstrates that the fundamental principle is winning by not losing. In practical terms, these approaches have led to a focus on two key combat elements - continuous rocket fire and systematic holding actions which cause the attrition of our forces.[6] These approaches are based largely on the understanding that the Israeli home front encompasses national assets, like every state, coupled with the understanding that Israel is sensitive to casualties.[7] A central element in the other side’s concept is the prolongation of the fighting while paralyzing basic services, thus influencing decision-makers by causing civilian unrest. The combination of these elements - damaging national assets on the home front, alongside our sensitivity to casualties and the prolongation of the conflict - allows our opponents to produce a “victory image,” which serves them in the construction of a general narrative about their achievements during the campaign.

Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, described in 2003 the way that this conceptual change occurred:

“The first time we shot at the Israeli settlements was the day that our Secretary General, Abbas al-Moussawi was killed [16 February 1992]. The first blow we landed on them was very painful, because it was a surprise to the Israelis. On our part, we discovered that after launching Katyusha rockets at the settlements, the enemy stopped attacking us and from that day we understood the lesson of that event...”[8]

The firing of rockets at the home front and the integration of new offensive elements[9] in the opponent's strategy, are designed to serve several possible concepts, such as an accumulation of achievements by taking a toll in life and property, disrupting the fabric of life by damaging societal life (for instance the closure of learning institutions), disruption of the economy, damage to strategic assets, etc. Furthermore, one can identify in recent years and conflicts a prolongation of the fighting, thus exhausting Israel in general (attrition) and the home front in particular.[10] This combination of a threat to the home front and the prolongation of hostilities creates a real challenge to the home front and to national security. As the campaign continues, the need to return to routine becomes stronger, although the conflict is continuing.

Tensions in Home Front Defense

The underlying imperative behind the Israeli home front civil defense effort is saving lives. The idea is to minimize the damage caused by enemy attacks on the population, based on a multi-tiered response whose main components are preventing assaults by attacking threat sources, active defense, and personal protection. Concurrently, efforts are made to maintain an “emergency routine,” the essence of which is to allow a basic daily routine for civil society during conflicts. This effort contributes to the national strength by “augmenting the resilience of the economy locally and nationally, and by creating a functional continuity...”[11] 

These efforts create a tension whose essence is in risk-taking - between conservation of life (defense and avoidance) and maintaining the fabric of daily life. As the level of protection decreases, restrictions on the functioning of the home front increase. As shown in the diagram below, two opposing forces influence the functional range of possibilities during emergencies. On the one hand (the green arrow) the desire to protect and safeguard life calls for “taking cover,” and on the other hand (the purple arrow) the desire for freedom of action and daily routine encourages a continuation of normal life and the taking of risks.

This range of possibilities includes all the normal activities of daily life - from medical services to entertainment and leisure. Of course, there can be no comparison between various normal activities and the proper functioning of the health system, which is immeasurably more important than the broadcasting of reality programs (such as the television show Big Brother during Operation Protective Edge). However, one should not underestimate any of the public activities because together they comprise the complete package known as societal resilience. The Israeli home front’s steadfastness during Operation Protective Edge was characterized by societal resilience allowing it to effectively cope with a long attrition campaign.[12] Societal resilience was reflected in the ability to “respond flexibly to serious disturbances (...), to allow a proportional and temporary functional withdrawal, to bring about a quick, with local changes and occasional adaptations, functional recovery to the original level of societal identity and conduct.”[13]

Facing the fire on the home front, active defense systems were developed, reducing damage to the home front, but exacerbating the tension between routine and protection due to their ability to reduce the likelihood of damages to the home front. As the level of defense increases the sense grows among the public that it is possible to maintain daily routine life during an emergency. Defensive systems indeed reduce the risk, thereby increasing the need to enable routine activities and the taking of calculated risks. These defensive systems, which, as noted, serve as a protective layer in the effort to save lives, affect the decision-makers and the public on both sides. The influence of the defensive systems is in increasing the leeway and calculated risks that can be taken to enable daily routine life and civilian activities, in addition to those necessitated during war.[14]

During ongoing conflicts, whose essence is attrition, decision-making becomes more complicated, and a dilemma arises between preserving life and maintaining the fabric of life. As the conflict continues and the level of the home front protection rises, the tension between saving lives and efforts to preserve routine life increases. This intensifies the need to grapple with a relatively new type of dilemma, requiring decisions that will contribute to success in both aspects, while understanding the interest and the national context, as well as the tactical challenge of this type of defense.

This tension between self-protection and the enabling of the fabric of daily life allows an escape from the rigid framework of self- protection (which is in essence unambiguous and apparently presents no dilemmas), and allows a dialogue about the space where one can maintain the fabric of daily life. A discussion of the latter type requires an understanding of the broader context - the enemy’s will, our own will and the circumstances - and of what it can contribute to national resilience, therefore leading to a freedom of action and to promoting our own interests, as well as to an adaptation to local needs and challenges - this will be discussed below.