Jabotinsky and Israeli Security Theory

There is no disagreement about the repercussions of October 7 and the shock it caused to consciousness, both regionally and globally, not to mention the resounding shock it caused to the Israeli consciousness. The resistance in the Gaza Strip turned the equations upside down, changed the balances, and stirred up what was dormant in the world’s consciousness.

The occupying state relied on the security theory as a basic pillar of survival and the concept of preemptive war on enemy territory due to the lack of strategic depth geographically. This concept stems from the statement: "It is very vital not to allow any war to take place on the land of Israel, and the concept of response was replaced by preemptive war if the Arab enemy tried to act on its land in a way that would worry Israel, such as infringing on freedom of passage, deploying forces on its borders, or depriving it of water." Therefore, the decision of the late leader Gamal Abdel Nasser to nationalize the Suez Canal (the Egyptian Navigation Company is an Egyptian joint stock company) was a blow to the entity, so it launched a tripartite aggression in partnership with France and Britain under the name (Operation Kadesh).

Jabotinsky's idea and the iron wall

The ideas of Vladimir Jabotinsky, the inspiration for the Zionist movement, who was born in Ukraine (1880-1940), are the founding ideas of the occupation state and are based on “that an entity planted on foreign soil cannot maintain its existence except with superior military power supported by superior political power, and that the idea of the Israeli existence is based on the theory of dominance and making others feel that merely thinking about confronting it is futile and pointless.”

This theory was based on the idea of military, intelligence and security superiority, both real and imagined. This latter description does not mean that the entity does not possess enormous military and espionage capabilities. Rather, this illusion stems from the idea of the June 1967 war and the entity’s defeat of six Arab armies. The Arabs became convinced that the Israeli army is the invincible army!

In his comprehensive encyclopedia (Jews, Judaism and Zionism - Part Two, published in 1999), on page 485, the Arab thinker Dr. Abdel Wahab El-Messiri says: “Based on the Israeli national security theory, the Arab world must be a relatively large demilitarized zone, and the structure of the Arab armies must be reconsidered, their sizes and offensive capabilities reduced, and even the borders must be modified in Israel’s favor and the move to establish a Jordanian-Palestinian security belt linked to Israel through a Syrian-Lebanese security system.” According to El-Messiri, Israel converts any withdrawal from any occupied Arab land into a security asset for it, and he gives an example by saying that Sinai is not a development project and will not be because it poses a threat to Israel’s security, but rather it is only a political project. Israel occupied Sinai on October 31, 1956 during the tripartite aggression against Egypt, i.e. before June 1967, and withdrew in 1973 on the eve of the October War, while Sinai remained a security asset for Israel! One of Israel's strategies is that any area it withdraws from becomes a security extension for it and it has the right to enter it at any time. Its repeated incursions in general and the borders of the Rafah area are a living example.

As for the stage of Palestinian self-rule (!) as stated in the Oslo Accords (!), it was a test for the Palestine Liberation Organization and the extent to which it would maintain the security of the settlements and the Israeli army within the areas of self-rule.

As for Jordan, Israel viewed it from the perspective of a security function! It realized that occupying it would be costly, so it saw that it was better for Jordan to remain as it is, so that it would be a security buffer for it from the rest of the countries.

The idea of a demilitarized territory is an old idea in Israeli national security and has been repeated in the statements of many occupation leaders. In a statement by Ariel Sharon in 2001, broadcast on Al Jazeera, he accepted a demilitarized Palestinian state. Likewise, in Haaretz newspaper, Netanyahu supported the idea of establishing a demilitarized Palestinian state.

The occupation, as we mentioned earlier, has relied on the pillar of security for its existence.

In his encyclopedia, Dr. Abdel Wahab El-Messiri focused on the idea of security among the Israelis and shed light on the idea of what is called (the Jewish temple - the castle temple) “where the Jews in Ukraine formed a settlement group there and this group was in a state of siege by the peasants, so the settlers confronted them with extreme violence - and the description here is El-Messiri’s - until the peasants rose up and killed them.”

Dr. Al-Masry also presented what he called “something like a small colonial state in Latin America within the Dutch colonial system at that time under the name (Yudin Savannah), so the Africans (slaves) and the indigenous people gathered and rose up and eliminated this colonial pocket.”

The security obsession has always existed among the indigenous population, and the settler - as is the case in Palestine, the writer says - knew deep down that the indigenous population would rise up one day and the Israeli would continue to live in constant fear, which would lead him to greater ferocity and a constant search for absolute security; security in all aspects, and this is impossible.

On the subject of peace with Arab countries in general, the Israeli vision is based on achieving strategic, security and economic interests, with a focus on ensuring its military superiority in the region. Since the signing of the Camp David Accords with Egypt in 1979, Israel has demonstrated a pragmatic approach based on establishing peace relations with Arab countries separately, away from resolving the Palestinian issue comprehensively. This vision revolves around normalizing relations with Arab countries in exchange for providing economic, technological and security incentives, as appeared in the "Abraham" Accords with some Gulf countries, Morocco and Sudan. However, this vision remains limited due to its disregard for the Palestinian issue as a fundamental root of the conflict, as Israel focuses on "economic peace" or "conflict management" instead of achieving a just and lasting solution. However, this approach faces widespread criticism because it deviates from the essence of comprehensive peace that guarantees Palestinian rights, which raises questions about the sustainability of this type of agreement and its impact on the stability of the region. In addition, the existence of a state of instability in the Middle East in general is considered a problem for the occupying state and poses a threat to its security.

The demilitarized or semi-demilitarized buffer zone was successfully implemented in the peace agreement with Egypt. As for the West Bank/Palestine and the Gaza Strip/territory, there are two visions: either demilitarization and control of the crossings, as the Labor Party sees it, or direct military control over them, as the Likud Party sees it.

At present, the Israeli aggression on Gaza and the West Bank has serious repercussions at various levels, whether humanitarian, political or regional. On the humanitarian level, the aggression will increase the suffering of the Palestinian people, as humanitarian crises are exacerbated by shortages of food, medicine and shelter, not to mention the huge numbers of civilian victims and the systematic destruction of infrastructure and civilization. On the political level, the continuation of the aggression has reinforced the state of anger and resentment, not only within Palestine, but also in the Arab region, which increases the complexity of peaceful solutions.

Regionally, this war could destabilize the region, igniting a new wave of tensions between the occupying state and neighboring countries. It could also exacerbate Israel’s international isolation, with growing global condemnation of its human rights violations and war crimes. Ultimately, continued violence will only deepen the cycle of hatred and mistrust, undermining any hope of achieving a just and lasting peace.

In short, at the heart of the security equation, a question comes to mind: Has Israel achieved security? The answer, according to Netanyahu’s vision, is that “Israel will remain armed for life.”