How, then, shall we cultivate lightning rather than mere thunder? Significantly, there is no formula answer, no "textbook" source of authority. On the contrary, indeed - by definition - needed insight can arise only because it sidesteps formula. Although a great deal can still be done to improve the conduct of inquiry within the structure of Israeli strategic studies, the "lightning" that could spark such inquiry in the first place can not be "improved." Nor can it be self-consciously generated by dedicated and purposeful methods that would follow upon formal study.

Does this mean that lightning in our area of concern will strike only when it "chooses" to do so on its own, that scholarly attention to these issues by interested strategists would represent little more than an esoteric waste of time? Not at all. To generate lightning instead of thunder, these strategists must first nurture a willingness to challenge all dominant military orthodoxies. Leaving aside all of the cliched "wisdom" with which they have been plied so assiduously for years, these students of Israel's survival could then prepare themselves to receive new and far more promising ideas - ideas that could arrive with the speed of light rather than the speed of sound.

Paradoxically, therefore, it is prompt irreverence that is called for, irreverence for Israeli strategic thinking that has generally been taken for granted and for Israeli strategic thoughts that are generally quite mistaken. What is required immediately is a far-reaching disrespect for prevailing Israeli military thought, not as an end in itself, to be sure, but as an essential beginning of more productive analyses and investigations. Once Israel's standard commentaries on war, terrorism and deterrence (just to name a few pertinent areas of concern characterized by increasing intellectual sterility) have been subjected to authentically critical scrutiny, the air will have been cleared for vastly more informed commentaries, for lightning-like strategic insights spawned by the remorseless expectations of new orthodoxies. Unburdened by fears of professional displeasure and censure, those who would seek better ways to enhance Israel's imperilled security will be able to take risks never before thought possible. Although it is true, as Jose Ortega y Gasset observed in the twentieth-century classic, THE DEHUMANIZATION OF ART, that the masses "bristle" whenever the new Muses present themselves, these new "Muses" are all that now stand between Israel's endurance and Israel's disappearance.

Lest this sound far too dramatic, consider the following: In the critical years ahead for Israel, the Jewish State's fundamental stance on matters of war and peace and terrorism will likely be fashioned in conformance with inadequate strategic theorizing. Should this regurgitated body of theory turn out to be only more of the same, a ritualized synthesis of cliches and dogma that simply does not recognize the sharp discontinuities of contemporary world politics and the associated transformations of violence, Israel's policy will assuredly fail. If, on the other hand, this theory should offer something very different, something that recognizes the strategic consequences, for Israel, of growing chaotic decentralization in the world, of unstoppable proliferation and of possible irrationality amongst its heavily-armed enemies, Israel's policy could be timely and self-protective. It could arrive as a lightning-bolt, not as the thunder- peal that merely follows.