The Israeli Security Doctrine: Between Erosion and Formulation

Passing the three-year mark since the events of October 7 represents a critically analytical turning point for tracking transformations in the structure of Israeli national security, far beyond the noise of the immediate moment and emotional readings. In this context, rigorous study papers—such as the study published by the Palestinian Center for Policy Research—emerge to put forward a central thesis that accurately dissects the nature of the strategic dilemma facing Israel's security system today. It moves beyond the binary of total collapse or superficial continuity toward a deeper approach: the erosion of the traditional foundations of deterrence, early warning, and rapid resolution, without this being accompanied by the birth of an alternative theoretical model. Instead, the military and political establishment has settled for producing a more ferocious and extremist version of the same old tools.

What the Israeli security system has experienced is not a sudden collapse that dismantles the pillars of the state all at once, but rather a gradual and accelerated erosion in the efficiency of the pillars it has long relied upon. Chief among these is the doctrine of transferring the battle to the enemy's territory and resolving it in the shortest possible time and at the lowest cost to the internal front. Since the ruling and military elites have been incapable of formulating an integrated and alternative strategic alternative, they have drifted toward compensating for this structural deficiency by escalating the exact same classical tools, albeit with doubled doses based on absolute proactive offense—abandoning the idea of containment in favor of extensive preemptive strikes—and re-engineering geography by imposing security belts and buffer zones both inside and outside the borders to mend the abject failure of early warning.

This transformation does not stop at the boundaries of the purely military field; rather, it extends to establish an unprecedented phase of long, multi-front wars, where daily life turns into something resembling a military barracks fully mobilized for sustained war effort. And while military tools seek to impose this reality by force, measuring the true cost in figures and facts reveals the extent of the deep stress the state is exposed to on several levels. This begins with the immense and unprecedented pressure on reserve forces, leaving behind financial hemorrhage and a growing deficit in the general budget, and does not end with indicators of reverse migration and the erosion of the collective sense of personal and public safety, which forms the backbone of the entire settlement project. Furthermore, the acute crisis of trust between the public and the political and military establishments is worsening, undermining the decision-making system's ability to restore its internal legitimacy, let alone its regional and international deterrence. Thus, the modified Israeli security doctrine appears at the peak of its historical dilemma; it attempts to escape forward by widening the circle of fire and prolonging the confrontation, while eroding from within under the weight of exorbitant human, economic, and psychological costs in an equation open to various outcomes.