Posts
Conflicts Forum is run by AlastairCrooke.
The whole very long text is here.
‘Israel’s Security Concept of Perpetual War Marks a Profound & Problematic Shift in its Traditional Security Doctrine’ (Udi Evental, Colonel (res.); Strategy and Policy):
‘The past two and a half years proves that the approach of preventing emerging threats by relying solely on force does not truly provide Israel with security, but rather exhausts it and erodes its ability to prepare for long-term challenges. Israel must return to the fundamentals – robust and effective defence, within our borders and with an offensive dimension when necessary. At the end of the day, wars are not won on the battlefield but through agreements that translate military achievements into an improved strategic reality’.
‘The Threshold of Paranoia was Crossed on 7 October; Israel Adopted a ‘Hardline’ Version of Permanent Security’ (Professor Yigal Levy, military sociologist):
‘Permanent security aims not only to eliminate immediate threats but also future ones, and is therefore subject to a paranoid mindset that generates self-fulfilling threats. The pursuit of a permanent solution allows for no compromise, whether political or deterrent; rather, it entails the destruction, expulsion or control of a population perceived as endangering the state’s security’.
‘With Permanent War, There is No End Game; The Enemy is an Undifferentiated Mass of Different Guises of Amalek’ (Professor Idan Landau — full interview in English):
‘Every single issue in foreign affairs is framed as either “existential threat” or “unavoidable use of military force”. There’s absolutely no room for talk about non-violent paths (“peace” is a taboo even on the left). The Enemy is an undifferentiated mass of Hamas/Iran/Hezbollah/ Houthis, in short, different guises of Amalek. The Gaza genocide has set a shocking new standard of indifference to civilian casualties: All targets are criminalized by association to your favorite Amalek (currently the IRGC), and we stopped bothering about substantiating this association with actual facts; declaring it so makes it so’.
‘Israel’s specific version of fascism has, in effect, produced divine or rabbinic legitimation for genocide’ (Interview with Professor Omer Bartov):
“The Holocaust … gradually became the glue binding Israeli society. A historical event transformed into an imminent threat: not something that happened in the past, but something always at the threshold. There will be another Holocaust if we don’t meet every threat with full force and destroy it at the root. After October 7, these two things fused. Hamas’s attack was framed as a Holocaust-like act — Hamas are Nazis. Criticizing Israel’s actions is antisemitic”.
[These compilations are drawn from analysis & commentary by leading Israeli political and security commentators, predominantly from the Hebrew press — as reports published in Hebrew often provide a different window on Israeli internal discourse. Minor edits have been made for clarity during translation].
CONSEQUENTIAL OBSERVATIONS —
Israel’s Security Concept of Perpetual War Marks ‘a Profound and Problematic Shift in its Traditional Security Doctrine’ Udi Evental, Colonel (res.); Strategy and Policy
(Summary/key points from Udi Evental’s piece)
After two and a half years of multi-front warfare, it is already clear that the shift in security doctrine [under Netanyahu] ... not only fails to bring Israel greater security, but likely brings less. What is the essence of this shift? … Where did we go wrong along the way, and if so, where do we need to go back and make amends? ...
Alastair Crooke, [04/05/2026 14:14]
A Paradigm Shift: In the wake of the trauma of 7 October, the State of Israel, the government and the military have completely overhauled Israel’s security doctrine. This shift took place in the midst of war, without any meaningful debate … The security concept that served Israel well for 70 years was based on the familiar pillars of deterrence, early warning and decisive action, to which the ‘pillar’ of defence was later added. The main tenets of this concept were formulated in Ben-Gurion’s day and updated over the years. Ben-Gurion understood that Israel, as a small country surrounded by enemies with limited financial and human resources, needed long periods of calm, a functioning economy and economic growth in order to sustain itself and develop, whilst also accumulating the resources required for the wars it would be forced to wage. Against this backdrop, Ben-Gurion sought wars that were as short as possible and confined to a single theatre …
In the wake of the trauma of 7 October, the security doctrine has undergone a de facto reversal centred on the concept of prevention – eliminating emerging threats at their inception, on all fronts, through the use of force, sometimes disproportionate, without regard to resource constraints. The idea is to prevent the development of any threat that might strike Israel by surprise, as happened to us on 7 October. In effect, from a policy that sought to extend the periods of calm between wars based on risk management in the face of threats and the pursuit of agreements, Israel has shifted to a policy that perpetuates a continuous cycle of wars without cease, and without diplomatic initiatives, whilst depleting the state’s economic and military resources and placing an ever-increasing burden on conscripts, reservists and the economy.
The concept of deterrence was escalated into ‘forward defence’ (a euphemism for territorial occupation) through the creation of ‘security zones’ in Gaza, Syria and Lebanon. At a higher level, the political echelon began to cultivate a narrative of living under existential threats that constantly hang over us and must be eradicated through “total victory”, whilst invoking the memory of the Holocaust to reinforce this narrative. It is no wonder that, in the shadow of such a concept, the Prime Minister referred to Israel as “Super Sparta” … In military terms, the IDF defeated Hamas, but the war’s objectives in Gaza – foremost among them the replacement of the organisation’s rule in the Strip – cannot be achieved by military force alone without political action to enable the desired strategic reality.
Security zones, in the south and the north ... create a reality of occupation, which various actors in Israel, particularly on the far right, perceive as territories available for expansion, annexation and Jewish settlement ... A security-ideological coalition has now emerged in Israel which utilises a defensive-preventive narrative to realise a messianic agenda of ‘Greater Israel’.
Israel’s balance of deterrence after two and a half years: From a strategic perspective … [the] series of multi-theatre conflicts and ongoing ground military operations ... have exacted a heavy toll and resulted in a lack of security in the home front, and were halted only due to external pressure and resource constraints … In fact, the concept of prevention, based on the illusion that threats can be completely eradicated through military force alone, left no room for pursuing political agreements. [In Gaza], the government fail[ed] to promote agreements, it sought to thwart them … [and] in the absence of a political move ... by building an alternative to Hamas rule, the moment the IDF withdrew from a combat zone, only Hamas remained on the ground to return and fill the vacuum.
Alastair Crooke, [04/05/2026 14:14]
Syria is a clear example of the expansion of the deterrence component into pre-emptive ‘forward defence’, whilst creating unnecessary threats, and in a manner that thwarts the available and realistic possibility of a historic non-aggression pact with Syria … The IDF has moved into the buffer zone in the Golan Heights and the Syrian Hermon mountain range – a presence that serves no essential defensive security purpose. The disengagement agreements, brokered by Kissinger in 1974, served Israel well and enabled the IDF to defend the settlements of the Golan Heights effectively, whilst keeping the border with Syria one of the quietest for fifty years ...
In Lebanon, Israel has returned to the reality of a security zone, which failed to provide security 25 years ago and is even less likely to do so today. A security zone will not resolve the threat ... as most of the firing at Israel originates north of the Litani; it will not disarm Hezbollah, whose forces are also positioned deep within the Bekaa; nor will it serve as leverage over the Lebanese government, given the sober assessment that it is currently too weak to disarm Hezbollah. Instead, a security zone would provide Hezbollah with an opportunity for a guerrilla war to harass our forces on the ground, and to restore its weakened standing in Lebanon as a fighter against the ‘occupation’. And in Iran? Preventing our rivals in the Middle East from acquiring military nuclear capabilities has become a semi-official part of Israel’s security doctrine ... [The] two objectives [the prevention of a nuclear threat and dismantling of Iran’s missile arsenal] whose achievement, if at all possible by military means, would require a perpetual war or endless cycles of attrition.
Damage from within: After two and a half years of war, it is already clear that a security concept based on prevention in the broadest sense is incompatible with the resources available to the State of Israel, undermines its economic resilience and investment (a downgrade in credit rating, brain drain) and has led the Chief of the General Staff to raise “ten red flags” and warn that the army is “collapsing in on itself”. And all this, despite the fact that the defence budget has more than doubled compared to 2023 ... at the expense of other sectors that are no less critical to Israel’s national resilience and competitiveness … This is particularly true in an era of acute manpower crisis in the IDF, in the shadow of continued draft evasion, and the difficulty of legally extending compulsory and reserve service.
A security doctrine based on prevention generates ongoing military friction, thereby serving the political leadership, which seeks by every means to shirk responsibility for the disaster of 7 October … In the past, the IDF’s strategic planning function was strong and dominant in national decision-making processes. The situation today has changed. The army, “scarred” by the failure of 7 October, is fighting incessantly, views the use of force as a central solution to problems, and has, to a large extent, replaced strategic thinking with tactical thinking. Under these conditions, it appears that the military has lost the ability to stand up to the political echelon and lead a balanced assessment of the situation, one that also weighs the advantages of restraining the use of force in favour of diplomatic moves. This is all the more so given that continuous use of force increases the budgets for the military and security, whilst long lulls in fighting may reduce them.
Alastair Crooke, [04/05/2026 14:14]
Another serious blow to Israel’s security … is the decline in support for Israel in American public opinion and the damage to our standing in the US, which is currently at an all-time low. Over time … our special relationship with the US – one of the critical, irreplaceable pillars of Israel’s national security – is in real danger … Israel is also losing support in Europe … In the Middle East Israel is perceived as a wild and unrestrained state that undermines regional stability and seeks to expand northwards (Lebanon and Syria), eastwards (the West Bank) and southwards (Gaza). Thus, rather than seeking to expand the circle of normalisation as a counterweight to the radical axis led by Iran, Arab states, led by Saudi Arabia, are seeking instead to restrict Israel’s actions in the face of what is perceived as its quest for hegemony in the region.
The bottom line: The State of Israel has adopted a security doctrine that has transformed the use of military force from a means into an end in itself, and into the sole alternative to political agreements that could improve its strategic position, both in the region and on the international stage. This represents a departure from the original security doctrine, which took shape in the days of Ben-Gurion, who learnt the hard way and understood full well that military victory alone, without a conclusive diplomatic component, is not enough to win wars. Over the past two and a half years, we have received clear proof that the approach of preventing emerging threats by relying solely on force does not truly provide Israel with security, but rather exhausts it and erodes its ability to prepare for the long-term challenges ...
Thus, instead of thoroughly investigating the failure of 7 October, learning lessons and making the necessary corrections, we have abandoned a security concept suited to Israel … and have adopted a concept of perpetual war. This has aligned with the Prime Minister’s dogmatic policy, which in recent years has shied away from political agreements and, more generally, from integrated political-military strategic thinking. Israel must return to the point where it ‘lost its way’ and rediscover the path it has strayed from: return to the fundamentals of our security doctrine, from which we have strayed over the years – including robust and effective defence, within our borders and with an offensive dimension when necessary – and understand that, at the end of the day, wars are not won on the battlefield but through agreements that translate military achievements into an improved strategic reality … Israel must – and, given the constraints on resources, will be forced to – restore it to its former scope: addressing only clear existential threats, such as enemies acquiring military nuclear capabilities.
‘The Threshold of Paranoia was Crossed on 7 October; Israel Adopted a ‘Hardline’ Version of Permanent Security’ (Professor Yigal Levy, Israeli military sociologist, Haaretz, 3 March 2026):
Israel’s conduct following 7 October can be framed as a drive towards ‘permanent security’. The concept, coined by historian Dirk Moses*, describes a state’s pursuit of immunity from threats. Permanent security aims not only to eliminate immediate threats but also future ones, and is therefore subject to a paranoid mindset that generates self-fulfilling threats. The pursuit of a permanent solution allows for no compromise, whether political or deterrent; rather, it entails the destruction, expulsion or control of a population perceived as endangering the state’s security. The liberal version of this approach was that of the US in the Vietnam War.
Alastair Crooke, [04/05/2026 14:14]
Over the years, Israel has sought permanent security, but in a ‘soft’ version that recognised the limits of its power and international law … Limitations on capability or American restraint lead to a retreat from permanent security. Thus, having recognised the limits of its power in 1973, Israel agreed to withdraw from the Sinai in exchange for peace with Egypt ... The threshold of paranoia was crossed on 7 October, and Israel adopted a ‘hardline’ version of permanent security. This was seen as achievable given its military superiority and the expectation of international tolerance. Relative permanent security, the ‘soft’ version, was presented as a remnant of the concept that had enabled the Hamas attack, even though the attack was caused by Israeli negligence and did not constitute a genuine new threat. Consequently, Israel killed tens of thousands of civilians ... effectively expanded its borders, established buffer zones in neighbouring territories, and sought to deeply demilitarise [the country’s] surroundings.
The same applies to the Iranian arena: Israel rejected diplomatic solutions that limit — but do not completely eliminate — nuclear capabilities, and therefore took military action. This success and superiority enabled it to set a further objective: the elimination of the missile threat, even if Iran did not fire directly at Israel on its own initiative. And since no agreement completely eliminates the motivation to arm, the logic of permanent security led to the aspiration for regime change, as a logic of control, albeit indirect, over the other.
The pursuit of permanent security inherently involves restricting democracy and curbing the opposition ... the security of individuals [and] communities [are] subordinate[d] to the abstract goal of absolute security… Political considerations are subordinated to military logic, and so the timing of the conclusion of diplomatic negotiations is determined by a window of opportunity for a targeted strike. Even the adversary’s sovereignty, which was once a component of the security concept, is losing ground … Permanent security therefore necessitates the use of force whenever the adversary recovers … Netanyahu was not wrong when he promised that permanent security would lead us to Sparta.
[* Professor Dirk Moses has outlined that the term ‘permanent security’ in fact originates from Otto Ohlendorf, “a Nazi war criminal, who before being hanged ... at Nuremberg by the Americans, [said that] … Jewish children would have grown up to become partisan enemies … [We] had to understand that the Germans didn’t just want regular security but permanent security: they were building a thousand-year Reich”].
‘With Permanent War, There is No End Game; The Enemy is an Undifferentiated Mass of Different Guises of Amalek’ (Interview with Idan Landau, Professor of Linguistics & Head of Department of Linguistics at Tel Aviv University; Professor Landau has been imprisoned on several occasions for his refusal to serve in the IDF) — full interview in English
Interview introduction -- Israel’s war with Iran is a direct result of a political culture that depends for survival upon a permanent state of war, says Idan Landau. He observes that Israeli society on the whole has embraced a fascist mindset, “reflecting extreme paranoia and anxiety,” and thus intolerance for dissent. Subsequently, peace is a taboo and there is total indifference to genocidal acts and human casualties. Moreover, there is very little hope for a different trajectory, argues Landau, “as long as the U.S. and Europe continue to insulate Israel from the moral consequences of its actions.”
Alastair Crooke, [04/05/2026 14:14]
“I think the whole point of permanent war – I agree this is the most appropriate concept to use here – is that there is no endgame. Permanent war, with ever growing economic, emotional and political costs, is exactly what keeps the Israeli right-wing in power; it feeds on anxiety, paranoia and visions of imminent destruction (interestingly, our own and our enemies’ destruction, equally vivid). Not being able to concentrate on and fully understand what’s going on is also crucial; the Israeli public is extremely underinformed about key issues ... The media – always complicit, these days criminal – bombards us with caricatures of our surrounding countries … That said, I think there is one constant, never-changing endgame lurking behind all the upheavals: The expansionist project in the West Bank. Not just Smotrich but a dedicated section within the Likud, of right-wing religious settlers, are working tirelessly on this project, actually from the first week after October 7 …
The impact on Israeli society is perhaps the most depressing aspect of it all. Political discourse has been reduced to hollow slogans. Every single issue in foreign affairs in framed as either “existential threat” or “unavoidable use of military force.” There’s absolutely no room for talk about non-violent paths (“peace” is a taboo even on the left). The Enemy is an undifferentiated mass of Hamas/Iran/Hezbollah/Houtis, in short, different guises of Amalek … Israelis live in a peculiar state of mind: total disbelief in the possibility of normal life, clinging on to the very ideology that perpetuates this state of mind ...
Netanyahu is the most able consolidator of all the dark impulses of Israeli society … [However], the Messianic drive to settle the greater Israel predates Netanyahu, as well as the overall brutal, racist degradation of Palestinians … [Very noticeable] is the subservience of the “opposition”; I don’t recall anything like it in the past. If you look at the governments that went to wars in 1973 and 1982, they faced considerable opposition, within the Knesset and outside of it, on the very issue of whether the war was justified … None of that is left today … In Lebanon, the Israeli armed forces are using Gaza tactics, attacking hospitals and killing medical staff, while in Iran they have engaged in what has been rightly described as chemical warfare on account of strikes on fuel depots.
As to [Israel’s] Labor Party … [there are] a handful of members of Knesset (MKs) that are obsessed with displays of liberal values and with welfare legislation when genocide is in full force and Apartheid shifts from de facto to de jure. The other “opposition” parties are either led by generals (Golan, Eizenkot) who offer zero alternatives to military dominance, or by right-wing neoliberals (Bennet, Lapid). The only representatives of left values in the Knesset are the Arab MKs …
The public atmosphere [in Israel] is incredibly intolerant, with or without the presence of the police, with or without any legal process. Just try to voice your opposition to the war – any war, pick your favorite – out in the street, and you’re sure to be harassed and probably beaten by random pedestrians within 15-20 minutes … It is a typical fascist all-embracing violent climate, reflecting extreme paranoia and anxiety: The mere verbal expression of “sacrilegious” opinions is seen as a personal threat to our carefully maintained peace of mind; so tenuous and feeble, that it cannot even stand to face dissent …
Alastair Crooke, [04/05/2026 14:14]
As all human rights organizations pointed out, the Gaza genocide has set a shocking new standard of indifference to civilian casualties: All targets are criminalized by association to your favorite Amalek (currently the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or IRGC), and we stopped bothering about substantiating this association with actual facts; declaring it so makes it so. In this context, one can watch civilian suffering in Iran with a level of detachment and blame it all on the IRGC. We should remember, though, that the Iranian regime is no more scrupulous in its choice of targets in Israel; the war crimes are on both sides ...
Wars eventually end, consuming nations. I just don’t think it will be “Israel” as we now know it that will see the fruits of peace. It will be a totally different entity, somehow letting Jews and Arabs live together as equals. That’s not possible within the current regime. Sadly, the shift to non-violence only occurs after the level of death and suffering is insurmountable to both sides. No one knows when that will be. As long as the U.S. and Europe continue to insulate Israel from the moral consequences of its policies, it won’t change trajectory.
‘Israel’s specific version of fascism has, in effect, produced divine or rabbinic legitimation for genocide’ — Interview with Professor Omer Bartov (Etan Nechin, Ha’aretz):
“… I’m not opposed to the existence of the State of Israel. But Zionism as an ideology didn’t just run its course. It became something I don’t recognize. It became the ideology of the state. And it became not only militaristic and expansionist but also racist, extremely violent and ultimately an ideology that deeply harms both the individual and the collective. Such an ideology has no place … It’s ironic and tragic that a movement that began as an attempt to free Jews from persecution, to give them a place of their own – a process of emancipation, liberation, humanitarian aspiration – ends its path as a racist and violent one … It became more and more likely that without a constitution that protects rights for everyone, Zionism, once it became the ideology of a state, would give up on the option of becoming a normal state for its citizens … There were attempts to redirect the process. The most important came in the early 1990s with Oslo. That attempt was blocked, very aggressively, with Netanyahu’s encouragement, with Rabin’s murder. Not enough is said about the fact that Rabin’s blood is on Netanyahu’s hands. Netanyahu was the main beneficiary of one of the most successful political murders of the 20th century.
“Israel cannot exist as a normal state under the ideology of Zionism. Zionism must disappear. The state will remain … The question is what kind of state it will be. It must change fundamentally. Under the Zionist ideology, it can’t. If it doesn’t give it up and become something else, it will be a full apartheid state, an illiberal democracy at best, very violent, eventually losing much of its more educated elite. Most of the population will stay ... It will become a pariah state, isolated. It will lose the support of its most important allies – Europe, the US – and of Jewish communities around the world, who increasingly see it as a danger to themselves rather than a protector.”
No comments:
Post a Comment