Israel Shifts From Containment to Offense With New Security Doctrine
Translated & summarized from Makor Rishon by baba
Israel is transitioning to an offensive security doctrine following the October 7th attacks, driven by a public awakening and a perceived shift in leadership. The new approach emphasizes proactive engagement, elimination of enemy leaders, and territorial control, while criticizing Western approaches and internal opposition.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Israel is adopting a new offensive security doctrine after years of perceived appeasement.
- The October 7th attacks catalyzed a public awakening and support for assertive government actions.
- The new doctrine prioritizes eliminating enemy leaders and occupying territory.
- Western approaches to conflict are criticized for being ineffective and naive.
- The article calls for robust communication strategies and independent military capabilities.
Israel's leadership has awakened from a prolonged period of appeasement towards what the article describes as "cultural barbarism and religious fanaticism," shifting towards a proactive security approach. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is identified as a key figure in this shift, having long advocated for a more assertive stance. The article suggests that past decisions, such as halting Operation Cast Lead without fully conquering Gaza, were influenced by a Western inability to define enemies and utilize force effectively, a trait observed in American and European educational systems and media.
The events of October 7th are presented as a catalyst for this change, awakening the Israeli public and making them more vocal. This public awakening is seen as crucial, with the majority of the Jewish population now supporting the government's actions, which include engaging the enemy with force, eliminating enemy leaders, and occupying territory to push threats away from Israeli civilians, even at the cost of soldiers' lives.
The article criticizes the opposition for aiding the enemy and predicts their continued decline in public support. It distinguishes between those who knowingly lie for political reasons and those who are genuinely unaware, particularly mentioning the Jewish population in the United States as an example of the latter, attributing their stance to psychological weakness rather than ideological reasoning.
A new security doctrine is proposed, emphasizing a transition from a defensive to an offensive posture. This includes developing detailed strategies for each front, building independent military capabilities, and consistently eliminating terrorist leaders and state sponsors of terror. The article also highlights the need for robust communication strategies, including Arabic, Persian, and Turkish satellite channels, to counter narratives from adversaries like Qatar and Iran.
Further recommendations include leveraging cinema as a powerful tool, dismantling the concept of a Palestinian state in favor of Palestinian emirates, addressing threats from Arab citizens and Bedouins within Israel through strong enforcement, achieving energy independence, developing alternative trade routes, and strengthening the Abraham Accords. The author stresses that true victory requires the military destruction of Hamas and the elimination of its leadership, alongside dismantling Hezbollah and neutralizing Iran's nuclear capabilities.
Mentioned
