By: Prof. Dr. Mohsen Mohammad Saleh.
Operation al-Aqsa Flood shook Israel’s security doctrine, delivering a severe blow to its foundational principles, especially the longstanding “security trinity” that has shaped Israeli strategy for 75 years:
1. Deterrence
2. Early warning
3. Decisive victory (swift and absolute triumph)
The attempt to “deter” Hamas ended in complete failure. Previous short-term wars, threats of enforced “calm,” and efforts at co-optation all proved ineffective. The early warning system also failed to anticipate Operation al-Aqsa Flood, despite its scale, intensity and coverage of an area twice the size of the Gaza Strip (GS) within the 1948-occupied Palestinian territory, as well as the heavy toll it inflicted within just a few hours (around 1,200 killed and 250 taken captive). The operation exposed a “multi-layered failure” in the security apparatus. Moreover, the assault on GS failed entirely to achieve a swift resolution, with the battle continuing for over 600 days, marked by persistent fighting and the steadfastness of the resistance.
Revisions to the Security Doctrine Before 7 October 2023:
The Israeli security doctrine underwent numerous revisions and “enhancements,” yet its core principles remained effective and upheld. Several security rules and strategic lines persisted, such as “mobilizing the people,” ensuring superiority and hegemony, preemptive strikes, secure borders and vital strategic space, shifting the battle to enemy territory, and securing the support of major powers, alongside developing self-reliance. Some revisions in the first two decades of the 21st century took into account several changes, including the shifting importance of geography, the threat posed by rockets and drones, cybersecurity, the state of revolutions and instability in the Arab environment, the “threat” of Palestinian demographic growth inside Israel, delegitimization threats, internal Israeli challenges, the decline in the quality of Israeli combatants, and the reluctance to bear the burdens of war.
In 2015, a fourth principle “defense” was added to the “security trinity” to reflect the focus on missile defense and the Iron Dome, as well as the border fence and its protection. Meanwhile, Israeli leadership during the “Arab Spring” adopted a “wait and hold the fortress” strategy in monitoring the upheavals across the region, but actively worked “behind the scenes” through proxies and allies to undermine this “Spring.”
The Shifts in Security Doctrine after Operation al-Aqsa Flood:
By examining Israeli political, military and security behavior, and reviewing the critiques and developments of Israeli security doctrine from key think tanks—particularly the government-affiliated Misgav Institute for National Security, the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), and The Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS)—we can, while acknowledging differences among them, summarize the main shifts or general trends as follows:
1. The Shift From Traditional Deterrence to Preventive Offensive Deterrence: This means transforming Israel into a state with a permanent offensive posture, managing its borders and vital strategic space (within its surrounding environment) through the use of force. This involves abandoning “deterrence by threat” in favor of “deterrence by destruction,” and moving away from “buying calm” and “conflict management” under traditional containment toward expanding the concept of security to include “prevention”—that is, stopping adversaries and enemies from launching attacks. Thus, the focus is on the concept of “emasculation,” where the capabilities of others are paralyzed from the outset before they have the potential to pose a threat to Israel.
This means that Israel, in its pursuit of regional hegemony, seeks to transition from “soft hegemony” to blatant and brazen “hard hegemony,” disregarding the exposure of its aggressive face, the violation of the sovereignty of neighboring countries, and even the “embarrassment” or humiliation of its partners and proxies in normalization states.
2. Strengthening the Early Warning Strategy: This requires a comprehensive reassessment of intelligence agencies (Mossad, Aman, and Shin Bet) and the development of new warning models that account for non-governmental actors and identify indicators of emerging security threats.
There is also a growing need to refocus on human intelligence capabilities, as technical intelligence has proven inadequate, particularly given the heavy reliance on it in recent years. A balanced integration of technological tools, including cybersecurity and artificial intelligence, with human performance has become essential.
3. Strengthening the Israeli Army’s Human and Material Capacities, and Enhancing its Ability to Deploy and Wage War on Multiple Fronts Simultaneously: The previous military strategy relied on a relatively small, efficient and flexible standing force (about 170 thousand), designed to minimize costs and supported by a large reserve force (about 470 thousand) capable of rapid and effective mobilization when needed. Since 7 October, however, the trend has shifted toward a larger army with a significantly expanded budget, alongside efforts to broaden conscription, even among previously exempt groups such as the ultra-Orthodox Jews (Haredim). This shift reflects the growing need for expansion, prolonged warfare and multi-front engagement, reinforcing the notion of a “militarized society” or “an army with a state”!!
4. The Shift Toward Readiness for a Protracted War: It reflects the failure of the principle of swift “decisiveness,” a cornerstone of Israel’s “security trinity” since its founding. After the October 1973 war, the Israeli army, mainly for practical reasons, moved away from the notion of “absolute victory” in dealing with resistance factions and instead adopted the concept of “sufficient victory,” aimed at securing periods of “calm” and containing threats as much as possible. However, Operation al-Aqsa Flood, marked by its duration and the strength of the resistance, has renewed the orientation toward long-term warfare, while simultaneously reviving the goal of decisive or absolute victory, regardless of how long it takes.
5. Stepping up preemptive strikes and broadening the scope of targeted assassinations, while loosening the political, security and ethical restraints that typically limit such actions.
6. Strengthening Regional Influence and Hegemony: This is pursued by imposing a new security map for the region, establishing buffer zones (as seen in Lebanon and Syria…), and activating alliances with normalization states to implement security agendas according to Israeli standards. Israel openly presents itself as the “regional policeman” and the “heavy hand” over the heads of others.
Netanyahu has repeatedly emphasized the idea of hegemony and “changing the face of the Middle East,” achieving “prosperity through power.” The Israeli leadership believes that resolving the Palestine issue and eliminating resistance forces can only be accomplished by altering the region’s security reality and suffocating the environment that sustains the resistance, thus ensuring future security for the Israeli generations.
7. Focus on Internal Security: This entails building “national resilience,” preparing for future shocks, and mobilizing Israeli society along with its capacity to adapt, especially in light of the growing risks of rocket attacks and border infiltrations. It also addresses the increasing desire among the Israeli community for reverse migration due to security concerns.
Furthermore, it involves confronting the “Palestinian demographic threat,” as the number of Palestinians has surpassed that of Jews in historic Palestine. Consequently, annexation, displacement and the creation of hostile environments for Palestinians have become central to Israel’s agenda.
8. Balancing Self-Reliance and Dependence on Allies: Although Israel has made significant strides in developing its military industries, becoming one of the leading global exporters of weapons and surveillance technologies, and although it has consistently pursued the goal of “self-reliance” and regional military superiority, this concept was significantly challenged during Operation al-Aqsa Flood. The confrontation demonstrated that self-reliance alone is insufficient to secure victory and highlighted the vital need for enduring strategic alliances, particularly with the US. Washington’s role proved indispensable in supplying advanced weaponry, countering Ansar Allah (the Houthis) in Yemen, confronting Iran, strengthening missile defense systems, offering international political, security and media backing, and applying pressure on regional actors.
9. Achieving Psychological Deterrence and “Searing the Consciousness”: This has been pursued in its most brutal and violent form, through the massacres, genocide, displacement, starvation, and destruction carried out in GS. All intended to sear into the collective consciousness a deep fear of the Israeli occupation and to suppress any inclination toward resistance.
10. The “smart fence” concept, intended for border defense and settlement protection, has proven inadequate. As a result, both personnel and physical defenses must be reinforced, along with bolstering the National Guard to confront potential threats.
Implications of the Shift in Security Doctrine on the Regional Environment:
Based on the above, changes in the security doctrine will be reflected in more aggressive Israeli behavior and policies across the regional environment, manifesting in the following ways:
1. Expanding Israel’s military and security operations regionally, with the aim of imposing overt dominance in the Middle East.
2. Undermining the concept of sovereignty in several regional states, such as Syria and Lebanon.
3. Increasing pressure on normalization states to implement security agendas and comply with Israeli standards under the pretext of combating terrorism. This results in greater repression of freedoms and suppression of pro-resistance and pro-Palestine movements, including “political Islam,” nationalist and patriotic forces opposed to the Zionist project, as well as efforts toward revival and unity.
There is also pressure on regional regimes to “securitize” civil life by generalizing the Israeli model, treating every political or popular threat as a “security issue,” which leads to the erosion of human rights and the overreach of intelligence agencies.
On the other hand, Israel’s arrogant behavior could lead to:
1. Some major regional countries resorting to protecting their national security by entering an arms race with Israel.
2. More importantly, this arrogant Israeli behavior targets an Arab and Islamic environment. By attempting to impose its heavy-handed dominance on nations proud of their religion, heritage, history and civilizational identity, it ultimately expands the scope of confrontation and defiance. It deepens anger and discontent across the strategic landscape and may hasten the emergence of a new “Arab Spring,” in which the main losers would be Israel and the allied regimes that have normalized ties with it.
3. Israel will suffer from strategic overstretch in pursuing its doctrine, resulting in exhaustion that exceeds its capacities and resources. This is a key historical indicator of state decline and collapse.
In a nutshell, a significant gap remains between Israel’s ambitions and what it can realistically achieve on the ground, while the peoples of the region continue to hold vast latent potential capable of confronting and defeating the Zionist project.
Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations, 27/6/2025
Leave A Comment