Former Head of Israeli Military Intelligence on Tel Aviv's Security Doctrine After October 7: Any Agreement with Arab Neighbors Is "Temporary and Deceptive" / Peace Agreements Are Merely "Technical" Arrangements / Peace Is a Tool to Achieve Political Goals / War Is Essential for National Security / The United States Is a "Declining" Power That Will Eventually Abandon Israel

The head of a Tel Aviv think tank writes that since October 7, Israel's policy has relied on the assumption that any agreement with its Arab neighbors is "temporary and deceptive," and that peace agreements are merely "technical" arrangements.

Middle East Eye wrote: The head of a think tank in Tel Aviv writes that since October 7, Israel's policy relies on the assumption that any agreement with the country's Arab neighbors is "temporary and deceptive" and that peace agreements are merely "technical" arrangements.

According to the selection report, this article continues: A former head of Israeli military intelligence has written that Israel's security policy has been guided by an unwritten "concept" since the October 7 attacks; A concept based on which, most of the Arab countries are "not real nation-states, but collections of tribes and ethnic groups that lack a common history and a national and fundamental perspective."

In an article published Monday by the Institute for National Security Studies, a think tank based at Tel Aviv University, Tamir Hyman outlined 10 principles that he says can be inferred from current policy.

Among these principles is the assumption that "any agreement with Arab actors is temporary and illusory" and that "peace agreements are merely technical and temporary arrangements that must be continually reviewed."

Haiman, who is a major general in the IDF reserve, was the head of the IDF's Military Intelligence Directorate from 2018 to 2021 and is now the agency's executive director. He wrote that this new concept "has not been formally formulated or presented to public opinion, nor has it been defined as a binding policy in the defense establishment."

"However, in practice, those principles shape decisions and determine Israel's approach to security," he added.

Hyman described his list as a "subjective, theoretical and deliberately exaggerated interpretation of current politics" and said the purpose of publishing the article was to provide a platform for public and professional debate.

He argued that the change represents a transformation in Israel's national identity, and said it aims to address the question of who we are after October 7.

Hyman wrote that the basic assumption of this concept is that the weakness of the Arab countries is for the benefit of Israel.

He wrote: “As a result, weakening their stability is considered a natural process; A process that Israel can manage more effectively than confronting powerful nation-states, and should even encourage it."

He related this point of view to another principle according to which security is pursued through the creation of "communities and settlement bases in all areas of friction with the Arab population, in Judea and Samaria [the occupied West Bank] and in the security areas of Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip".

According to him, these deployments "further fuel the instability of the artificial Arab states".

Peace as a "naive mistake"

Hyman wrote that within the framework of this new concept, the effort to establish peace is considered as the wrong repetition of "Conceptia"; A Hebrew term to refer to the dominant strategic assumptions widely held responsible for Israel's inability to anticipate the October 7 attacks.

"Achieving a meaningful peace agreement in the Middle East is not possible because peace agreements are merely technical and temporary arrangements that must be continually reviewed," he wrote.

He added: "According to this view, peace is not an intrinsic value that creates security, but is a tool to achieve other political goals."

Hyman also wrote that, from a political perspective, peace is considered a "simplistic" concept that is associated with the leftist "pacifist" camp and is in tension with or directly opposed to the "security-oriented" rightist camp.

The article states that this concept considers war to be "necessary for national security". In this context, the article refers to the phrase "Silence is a filth" from the Betar movement's anthem; The revisionist Zionist youth movement founded by Zeo Jabotinsky in 1923.

Hyman wrote: “War is necessary, and preventive war is preferable, because it guarantees a significant achievement from the outset. "The intensity of the war may change depending on the situation, but its continued presence is an asset to national security."

The article also states that this concept sees the United States as a "declining" power that "will soon abandon Israel anyway." According to this view, breaking ties with Washington is considered necessary for "Israel's independence and the resilience of its Jewish national identity."

Among other principles identified by Hyman is prioritizing the state's Jewish identity over its democratic system; Even if this approach ends "at the cost of eroding democratic values".

He wrote that this concept considers the Palestinian national movement "an unrealistic and Western narrative rooted in post-colonial guilt" and leads to "fundamental opposition" to any separation between Israel and a Palestinian entity, as well as to the formation of a Palestinian state.

According to him, according to this view, security should be provided through the expansion of settlements, "both inside and beyond the green line" - a line that is considered "illusory" in this approach; While Arab residents who remain in these areas will be granted "rights of residence and local self-government".

Hyman compared each of these changes to the fundamental principles that he says have underpinned Israel's traditional security doctrine and raised a series of questions for discussion.

He asked about peace: "What is the strategic and moral value of a security doctrine that defines peace agreements as a kind of "concept", that is, a flawed and inherently unreliable illusion? Why do we consider peace as a strategic asset that contributes to the country's prosperity and therefore should be protected?"

He also asked whether the temporary nature of peace might become a "self-fulfilling prophecy that undermines Israel's long-term security" and how Israel will deal with the threat of emigration from the country; including the risk of "brain drain on a scale that threatens the economy".

Hyman also questioned whether a policy that seeks to limit the civil rights of Israel's Palestinian citizens — who he says make up about one-fifth of the country's population — can still be consistent with the definition of Israel as a "Jewish and democratic" state.

Regarding the use of settlers in leading positions, he also asked if placing civilians as "shields" on the front line would not reverse the priorities of an independent government; A government that, according to him, puts soldiers before civilians. He also warned that such a policy "exposes civilians to the exact same dangers that the government, through the Israeli army, sought to protect them from."

Hyman wrote that the trauma caused by the October 7 attacks has necessitated changes in Israel's security approach; But if the principles he described really represent the new concept of security, they will represent a "deep and fundamental contradiction" with the foundations of traditional doctrine.

He concludes: "The remarkable influence of this concept stems precisely from the fact that it operates not as a declared policy of the government, but as an unwritten concept that is revealed through practical actions."

Hyman added: "Only in this way can we determine whether this approach is a necessary adaptation to the current and emerging security reality, or whether it represents a fundamental and unbridled change in the state's identity."