The Minister of Defense in the Israeli occupation government, Yoav Galant, announced that the war in the Gaza Strip consists of three stages, starting with the destruction of the Hamas movement through a military campaign targeting the movement and its infrastructure. The second phase will be to continue fighting, but with less intensity “to eliminate any pockets of resistance.” The third step is “establishing a new security system in Gaza, and creating a new security reality for the citizens of Israel and residents of the areas adjacent to Gaza.” But how can this be understood within the framework of the Israeli security theory on which the state was built 75 years ago?

After the "Al-Aqsa Flood"... the occupation is searching for an alternative to the Israeli security theory

The Israeli security theory emerged from the thesis of Zeev Jabotinsky (1880-1940), the founder and leader of the Revisionist Zionist movement and the godfather of the Israeli right, which he published in two articles in 1923 entitled “The Iron Wall,” in which he saw that reaching an agreement with the Arabs was not possible, because they will not give up their land and rights, so conflict with them is inevitable.

According to Jabotinsky, this matter requires the establishment of an iron wall based on building a deterrent military force sufficient to generate despair in the hearts of the Arabs and push them to give up Palestine. He stressed that peace with the Arabs would become possible only after inflicting severe military defeats on them. What prompts them to accept the existence of “Israel” and the futility of resisting it militarily.

A report by Asabab website, which specializes in political and strategic analysis, says that the Israeli Prime Minister and former Defense Minister David Ben-Gurion, immediately after the establishment of the occupying state in 1948, supervised the crystallization of a national security theory emanating from the “Iron Wall” thesis, and was based on the small population of Israel compared to its Arab surroundings. And its lack of defensive depth due to its limited geographical area, and therefore the “all people are an army” model was adopted, which makes the occupation army the largest army in the world in terms of its size, which depends on reserve forces compared to the number of population.

The foundations on which the "Israeli security" theory was built: deterrence, intelligence superiority, and rapid decisiveness.

First: deterrence

This is done by possessing a superior military force that discourages opponents from attacking “Israel” for fear of being destroyed by its army, which, despite being a small regular army, has huge reserve forces in accordance with the “all the people is an army” approach.

Second: Intelligence superiority

Which aims to provide early warning that allows the threat to be thwarted proactively, and also provides the opportunity to mobilize reserves at the appropriate time to confront threats, given that reserve mobilization represents a necessity. Intelligence superiority depends on multiple sources of information collection, such as: human sources, cyber penetration, electronic eavesdropping, aerial photography, and benefiting from the exchange of information with friendly intelligence services, which allows obtaining detailed information about the opponent’s intentions, the size of his forces, their armament, and their locations. And its movements.

Third: Quick resolution

By solid defense along the border to prevent the opponent from occupying any part of the territory controlled by the occupation, and transferring the war to enemy territory as quickly as possible, and possessing an air force capable of providing assistance to the ground forces from the first hour of combat, and launching a pre-emptive attack in the event of danger. serious or potential, and eliminate threats as quickly as possible to prevent the mobilization of reserve forces for a long time.

“Ironing consciousness,” “mowing the lawn,” and “the battle between wars.”

The Israeli security theory was developed to confront regular forces during the conflict of the occupying state with the Arab armies, but following the peace agreements with Egypt and then Jordan, and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the threats from the Arab countries declined, and resistance movements and organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad in Palestine, and Hezbollah emerged among the threats. In Lebanon. Therefore; Israel coined new terms within its security doctrine, such as “ironing consciousness,” “mowing the grass,” and “the battle between wars.”

The "battle between wars" is based on taking pre-emptive offensive measures based on high-quality intelligence information with the aim of deterring the enemy, keeping the fighting outside the territory of "Israel", and weakening opponents without having to wage a wide-scale war with them.

This includes undermining the opponent's military capabilities, or "mowing the grass", and inflicting on him heavy human and material losses if he engages in hostile attacks that are sufficient for the process of "cauterizing consciousness" to prevent him from attempting to repeat those attacks, given his certainty that he will pay a heavy price, which is what ultimately, it ensures that long periods of calm are maintained to the greatest extent possible, in order to provide the stability necessary for the development of the state, ensure its economic, social and political prosperity, and allow resources to be redirected towards education, science and other civic areas to enhance Israel's comprehensive potential.

How did the “Aqsa Flood” battle destroy all these theories?

The “Asbab” website says that the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation struck the entire foundations of the Israeli security theory. The Israeli force did not deter the Al-Qassam Brigades from thinking about launching a large-scale attack that would include dozens of Israeli settlements and sites. Israeli intelligence was unable to obtain any prior information about the attack, and the Palestinian fighters succeeded in controlling large areas of the occupied territories for the first time.

This collapse once again awakened concerns about the possibility of the collapse of Israeli state in light of the steadfastness of the Palestinians despite the oppression and siege. It also undermined the sense of security and stability that allowed for more immigration and settlement operations in recent decades.

Regardless of the repercussions of the current brutal Israeli campaign on Gaza, the Israeli security theory has collapsed, the theories of “cauterizing consciousness” and “mowing the grass” have collapsed, and the “battle between wars” approach has proven its failure in undermining the capabilities of the resistance or deterring it from carrying out a massive attack like the one it carried out. The morning of October 7.

And so; The statements of the occupation leaders reflect the impact of shock, and the impact of a crisis of confidence shaking the Israeli army and intelligence services, that the previous security and strategic model has ended, which means that they are searching to impose a “new model” and build a new security theory, which will restore the attractiveness of “Israel” and its collapsed reputation as a haven safe for Jews from around the world. But this is a task that does not seem simple or within reach, regardless of the outcome of the destruction taking place in the Gaza Strip.