____________________________________________ 7 IICC Perspectives implementation can only occur within a broader culture that treats doubt and debate as primary tools in the intelligence process. Oversight and other mechanisms have no real value if the entire intelligence organization is not structured to undertake a serious examination of contradictory opinions. Such an approach is needed not only as a safeguard ("sanity check") for leading assessments but out of a belief in the possibility of gaps in understanding. The main practical tool for focusing the effort to obtain clarity and understanding around doubt and debate is the idea of "competing hypotheses." Implementing the concept shapes a systematic intelligence process which provides a foundation for debate by presenting a wide range of explanations for the present and possibilities for the future. The realization of the concept helps enhance transparency in the assessment process, adopting a clear standard which allows broad judgment and the critique of fundamental assumptions and the entire analysis process. It is not merely a way to test a leading assessment, it is a profound idea which requires grappling with additional possibilities in every critical issue, even those not necessarily reflected in the information. Without "competing hypotheses," contradictory information loses significance because it becomes difficult to understand. For example, Hamas’ non-participation during rounds of fighting in which the Palestinian Islamic Jihad was attacked in Gaza (2019, 2022 and 2023) was interpreted as reinforcing the assumption that Hamas had been deterred. A competing possibility that Hamas was building its power for a future attack might have provided a better understanding. Experience teaches that an approach centered on doubt and debate is often in opposition to human nature, and in contrast to intelligence approaches which Hamas intentions were not understood
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=