“Ten principles outline the features of the new security concept” in Israel
Amman5 min read
Share
The former head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate (Aman) and current head of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), Tamir Hayman, revealed profound shifts in the Israeli security concept following the “October 7” attack, considering that the security practices adopted by Israel since that date reflect the features of a new security concept that goes beyond military policies to reshape the state’s national identity and priorities.
In an analytical study published on October 7, titled “The New National Security Concept: A Conceptual Vision and Questions for Discussion,” Hayman stated that three years after the attack, it has become clear that Israeli security policy is practically guided by a new security concept, different from the unwritten concept that had formed over decades, and which has come to govern key aspects of Israel’s security and military behavior.
In his analysis, Hayman proposes three interconnected levels: national identity, the security concept, and security policy, explaining that the security concept derives its reference from the state’s identity, constitution, and foundational legacy, and is supposed to be more stable than policies that change with changing governments.
Hayman outlines 10 principles that he believes define the features of this new concept, foremost among them prioritizing Jewish identity over democratic values, even when this leads to the erosion of these values, raising questions about the future of the balance between the Jewish character of the state and the principles of equality and citizenship.
The second principle is treating peace as a means rather than an end, as agreements with Arab parties are viewed as temporary and prone to collapse, while the pursuit of de-escalation may be portrayed as a repetition of the mistakes that preceded the attack. This perspective reflects a decline in confidence in the possibility of building long-term stability through political agreements alone.
The third principle relates to the view of Arab states, as Hayman conveys a perception that considers most of them tribal groupings rather than cohesive nation-states, and views their destabilization as natural. This is a proposition that reflects a problematic approach to regional relations, based on questioning the stability of surrounding states rather than dealing with them as parties with whom relations based on mutual interests can be built.
The fourth principle is establishing war as a fundamental state in the national security system, rather than viewing it as an exceptional means to achieve specific goals. According to this perception, calm is viewed as a sign of weakness, and the pursuit of avoiding confrontation is seen as a concession that may threaten security, which opens the door to the continuation of military operations and a decline in the chances for political settlements.
The fifth principle places self-reliance at the forefront of priorities, by reducing dependence on the United States and freeing itself from the restrictions that American administrations might impose on Israeli decisions.
The sixth principle gives absolute priority to initiative and offense at the expense of defense, based on the view that preemptive and surprise war is the most effective way to achieve victory. According to this approach, offensive action becomes a central element in the security doctrine, rather than merely preventing or containing threats.
Related to this is the seventh principle, which is adopting forward defense by establishing buffer zones or defensive positions within the territories of adversaries, with the aim of moving the confrontation beyond Israeli borders as quickly as possible.
The eighth principle is treating the Palestinian conflict as part of a permanent Israeli-Arab conflict, while rejecting political, geographical, or security separation between Israel and the Palestinian entity, and rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state.
The ninth principle gives settlements and settlers a fundamental role in the security system, by returning to a concept that views settlements as advanced lines of defense, and settlers as part of the network for defending Israel.
The tenth principle is strengthening industrial and security independence, by expanding local production and investing in defense industries and military technology, and reducing reliance on the outside, including limiting the connection to international cooperation frameworks that might restrict the freedom of Israeli decision-making.
In contrast to this reading, a debate is emerging within Israeli research circles regarding whether these practices actually constitute an integrated security doctrine, or whether they are an expression of an ideological and political trend that may carry strategic risks.
In this context, Ofer Shelah, a researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies, criticized what he described as the flawed and dangerous logic of the new security concept, warning that Israel is heading toward an endless war, with the expansion of its military deployment and the increasing reach of the confrontation borders. He believes that this path may negatively affect the Israeli economy, social cohesion, and the “people’s army” model, in addition to its effects on the desire of segments of the population to remain in Israel.
In the absence of an official document defining the features of this concept, the question remains as to whether Israel is witnessing merely a rearrangement of its security priorities after the October 7 attack, or a deeper shift in its perception of itself and its role in the region.
