A technical analysis of Michael Handel’s theory of surprise applied to the Hamas attack on Israel on 7 October 2023.

In brief

Michael Handel’s theory of surprise, although non-existent as such, is deeply rooted in his work on intelligence failures and strategic surprises. This article analyses this theory through the example of Hamas’s surprise attack on Israel on 7 October 2023. By examining Handel’s five key propositions, we will explore how these principles manifest themselves in this modern context, the intelligence errors involved and the strategic consequences that follow.

Background and importance of the theory of surprise

Michael Handel’s theory of surprise draws on his many studies of intelligence failures and strategic surprises. These concepts are particularly relevant to understanding the events of 7 October 2023, when Hamas launched a surprise attack against Israel. This attack, which resulted in the deaths of around 1,200 Israeli civilians and soldiers and the capture of more than 250 hostages, is a perfect illustration of the dynamics studied by Handel.

The Hamas attack was not a simple historical anomaly, but part of a recurring pattern of strategic surprises. Indeed, Handel has shown that strategic surprises often result from a combination of underestimating the enemy’s capabilities and overestimating its own resilience. In 1973, for example, Israel had already suffered a strategic surprise during the Yom Kippur war, despite clear warning signals. The repetition of this pattern in 2023 underlines the importance of understanding and applying the principles of the theory of surprise.

Surprise suspends the dialectic of war

The first proposition of Handel’s theory of surprise states that surprise can suspend the dialectics of war. This means that a successful surprise attack can temporarily neutralise the opponent’s ability to react, creating a situation where objectives can be achieved without significant opposition.

The example of the attacks of 11 September 2001 is emblematic: small, lightly armed teams were able to cause massive destruction in the absence of any initial opposition. Similarly, on 7 October 2023, Hamas exploited total surprise to cross the Israeli border at more than 30 locations, attacking civilians and military bases almost without immediate opposition. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF), reduced in numbers due to the religious festivities, were unable to react effectively, perfectly illustrating this suspension of the dialectic of war.

The attraction of surprise for weak players

Handel’s second proposition emphasises that weaker players are often attracted by the strategy of surprise. This is explained by their inability to achieve their objectives by conventional means. The Hamas attack in 2023 is a classic example of this dynamic.

Hamas, aware of its inability to compete militarily with Israel in a direct confrontation, opted for a complex surprise attack. This operation, involving coordinated attacks by land, sea and air, had ambitious objectives, such as the capture of Israeli territory between Gaza and the West Bank. Although this ambition was not fully realised, the attack inflicted significant casualties and had a major political and psychological impact.

Handel’s risk paradox

Handel’s risk paradox suggests that the bolder an attack, the less likely it seems, and therefore the less risky it is perceived to be by the adversary. This proposition goes a long way to explaining why strategic surprises succeed.

Before the attack on 7 October, Israeli intelligence had clear indications of Hamas’s preparations, but these signals were ignored or played down. Israeli analysts considered that Hamas did not have the capacity to carry out such a daring operation, hence the lack of adequate preparation. This underestimation of the enemy’s capabilities is a typical example of the risk paradox described by Handel.

Strong players focus on attrition

Handel’s fourth proposition highlights the tendency of strong actors to focus on a war of attrition, often neglecting the possibility of strategic surprises.

Israeli forces, confident in their military superiority, have assessed Hamas’ preparations from the perspective of conventional confrontation, neglecting the potential impact of a well-orchestrated surprise attack. This focus on attrition led to an inadequate response to the 7 October attack, demonstrating once again the importance of asymmetric perceptions in conflicts between strong and weak actors.

The return of war after surprise

Handel’s final proposition is that surprise eventually fades, giving way to traditional warfare in which the strong player regains the advantage.

After the attack on 7 October, Israel quickly mobilised its forces to respond decisively. The Israeli retaliation resulted in significant losses for Hamas, underlining the precariousness of the gains made by the initial surprise. This cycle of surprise followed by attritional response is a recurring pattern in asymmetric conflicts.

Advantages and disadvantages of strategic surprises

One of the major advantages of strategic surprise for weak players is the possibility of making significant gains in a short space of time and with limited resources. However, these attacks also carry considerable risks.

On the one hand, surprise attacks can cause disproportionate damage, as demonstrated by the 7 October attack, which shocked the international community and shook perceptions of security in Israel. On the other hand, such attacks expose weaker actors to severe and long-term retaliation, compromising their strategic viability. The Hamas attack led to a massive military response from Israel, jeopardising the stability of the region.

Consequences of strategic surprises

Strategic surprises have profound and lasting consequences. In the immediate term, they can lead to major human and material losses. In the longer term, they can alter power dynamics and strategic perceptions.

The attack on 7 October reinforced Israel’s determination to neutralise threats to its security, while raising questions about the capabilities and strategies of its intelligence apparatus. Internationally, it drew attention to the continuing tensions in the region and prompted calls for diplomatic and humanitarian solutions.

–

Michael Handel’s theory of surprise, although non-existent as a single body of theory, offers valuable insights into the dynamics of strategic surprise. By analysing the attack of 7 October 2023 through this prism, we can better grasp the mechanisms of intelligence failure and the impact of surprise attacks.

Strategic surprises, while potentially effective in the short term, carry high risks and often disastrous consequences for all parties involved. Understanding and anticipating these dynamics remains crucial for international security decision-makers and analysts.

Want to fly a fighter jet ? Get in touch.