Israel's Security Doctrine Re-evaluation Three Years After October 7

Three years after the October 7, 2023 attacks, Israel continues to debate its security doctrine and the strategic shifts prompted by the war. The discussion has expanded beyond intelligence and military failures to encompass the relationship between security and national identity, and the roles of war, peace, and settlement expansion. Tamir Hayman, former head of military intelligence and head of the Institute for National Security Studies, published a paper on October 7, 2026, proposing that Israel is adopting a new national security concept, even without an official document. He suggests this shift reflects a fundamental change in the state's identity, though critics argue these "new" principles, like offensive initiative and prioritizing Jewish identity, have historical roots.

Hayman's framework links national identity to security concepts and policy, positing that a change in identity can lead to a new security outlook. He identifies ten principles in the "new concept": prioritizing Jewish identity over democracy, viewing peace as temporary and war as perpetual, favoring offensive action, establishing forward defense zones, questioning Arab states' cohesion, rejecting a Palestinian state, enhancing settlements' security role, reducing reliance on the U.S., and increasing industrial and security independence. However, this analysis is challenged for deriving a coherent doctrine from unformalized practices, where government calculations may influence military assessments.

The article contrasts this with the traditional Israeli security doctrine of "deterrence, early warning, and decisive action," which viewed war as exceptional. Yet, it notes that the traditional doctrine also incorporated offensive strategies, like transferring battles to enemy territory, and the "war between wars" strategy. The true shift, it argues, lies in the altered priority of offensive initiative, diminished faith in deterrence post-October 7, and increased readiness for continuous force application, indicating a change in how military tools are used rather than a complete shift from defensive to offensive.

Regarding Jewish identity and settlements, Hayman contrasts the traditional concept of combining Jewish character with civil equality with a new one prioritizing Jewish national supremacy. The article points out that tensions between these elements predate the war, citing the military rule over Palestinian citizens until 1966 and the 2018 Nation-State Law. The shift highlighted post-October 7 is the expanded role of civilians and settlers in defense, linking military deployment to protecting settlements. This integration raises questions about its impact on Palestinians, as open defense zones and settlement expansion reorganize military control and land sovereignty.

The article questions who is leading this doctrinal reshaping, noting that ideological government goals, military assessments, and war-imposed trends might produce similar practices with different motivations. It highlights the gap between aspirations for security independence from the U.S. and actual reliance on American support. These contradictions suggest a struggle over defining the security doctrine rather than a simple transformation. Hayman's paper is significant for linking security doctrine and state identity, but limited in overstating the break from tradition. October 7 accelerated a rearrangement of existing security thinking, altering the balance between military considerations and political-ideological goals. The crucial factor is the political establishment's ability to institutionalize these changes and the military's willingness to adopt or limit them, impacting the Palestinians and the regional order.