PNN – Major General (Res.) Tamir Hayman, head of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) in Israel, has recently addressed the Israeli regime’s new doctrine.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network; the Zionist general—whose 34-year military career included commanding the National Security College and heading the IDF’s Military Intelligence Directorate (Aman)—discussed the challenges and plans facing the Zionist regime in the period ahead.
Perhaps one of the most salient points raised is that the United States is a “declining power” and will ultimately abandon Israel; consequently, according to this Zionist general, breaking away from the U.S. is not merely inevitable but essential for the usurping, counterfeit Zionist regime to achieve independence.
On the domestic front, the new doctrine prioritizes Israel’s Jewish identity (racism) over its democratic system, even at the cost of eroding democratic values.
However, the more perilous aspect concerns Israel’s plan to fragment Arab nations.
According to the doctrine analyzed in this study, any agreement or compromise with the Arabs is merely temporary and deceptive; peace is not a strategic goal, but rather a tool for achieving other objectives.
This doctrine stems from the premise that most Arab countries are artificial entities—not genuine nation-states in the eyes of Israeli policymakers—and that Israel should therefore encourage their destabilization and fragmentation, as it is easier to deal with weak, fragmented Arab states than to confront powerful nation-states.
War is viewed not as a situation to be avoided, but as an enduring necessity for Israel’s security; consequently, the author favors preemptive wars and surprise attacks over waiting for Israel to come under assault.
This doctrine also encompasses the establishment of Zionist settlements and outposts in the West Bank, as well as the creation of security zones within Syria, Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip—thereby transforming settlement expansion and military expansionism into defensive and offensive tools that simultaneously contribute to destabilizing neighboring Arab states.
In the introduction to his piece, Tamir Hayman notes that Israel’s security concept is undergoing a transformation that requires clarification.
Since October 7, 2023, it has become abundantly clear that Israel’s security policy is being driven—in practice—not by the unwritten security concept that had evolved over decades, but by a new one.
This new concept has neither been formally articulated and made public, nor has a binding definition of it been established within Israel’s military structure. Nevertheless, its principles effectively guide the decision-making process and dictate security conduct.
This article serves as a platform for both general and specialized discourse; its aim is not merely to examine the concept of security within the context of security and military debates, but to highlight a potential fundamental shift—namely, the transformation of Israeli identity. The article seeks to stimulate reflection and address the question of our identity in the aftermath of October 7, 2023.
Another section of this doctrine emphasizes that, for Israel, peace is employed not as an end, but as a tool; this principle stems from the fundamental premise that any agreement with Arab parties is merely temporary and illusory.
Therefore, attempting to achieve it amounts to a return to the “conceptual” error that was a pivotal factor in the October 7 tragedy (Operation Al-Aqsa Flood); for achieving a fundamental peace agreement in the Middle East is impossible, given that peace agreements are merely superficial and temporary arrangements that consequently require constant revision.
According to the head of one of the Zionist regime’s major research institutes, from this perspective, peace is viewed not as an intrinsic goal for achieving security, but rather as a tool to realize Israel’s other political objectives. Politically, “peace” is regarded as a naive concept representing the leftist stance—the “peace camp”—and stands in contradiction to the concept of “security,” which embodies the right-wing stance—the “security camp.”
- Denial of the independent existence of Arab states:
The fundamental premise is that most Arab states are not genuine nation-states but rather collections of tribes and communities lacking a shared history and a foundational national vision.
Consequently, their instability is viewed as a natural process—one that Israel can manage far more effectively than it could a confrontation with powerful nation-states, and which it might even encourage.
- War as a Fundamental State:
War is essential for Israel’s security and has no substitute in the form of a state of peace—a state which, as previously noted, is a means rather than an end.
Peace is viewed as a “humiliating silence”; consequently, striving for it is perceived as a sign of weakness.
From this perspective, viewing war as an unavoidable evil to be shunned—and the ceaseless pursuit of compromise and peace—lies at the root of the error that led to the events of October 7.
War is essential, and preemptive war is preferable—over any other strategy—because it guarantees a major achievement from the very outset.
The intensity of the war may vary depending on circumstances, but its existence as a permanent state serves as an asset for domestic security.
- Self-reliance and freedom from dependence on the United States:
Israel’s internal security is entirely self-reliant and does not require the support of any single power. Relations with the United States, despite their importance, are based solely on self-interest; indeed, excessive adherence to constraints imposed by the US government on Israel is dangerous, as the United States is a declining power that—given its ongoing social and political transformations—will soon abandon Israel.
Furthermore, excessive reliance on the United States exposes Israel to the influence of progressive American values, which conflict with Israel’s Jewish character.
Therefore, breaking free from the United States is inevitable and essential for Israel’s independence and the strength of its Jewish identity.
Initiative and offensive action take absolute precedence over defense: a surprise preemptive strike is viewed as the only path to victory; hence, the offensive is prioritized over the defensive.
Given the assumption that Israel lacks the capacity to withstand a surprise attack and cannot guarantee reliable early warning, the only remaining option is a preemptive policy based on preemptive strikes and warfare.
- Forward Defense:
In situations where launching a preemptive counter-attack is not feasible—or where the attack requires preparation time—establishing forward defense zones becomes important, provided such a measure is possible.
These areas provide strategic depth for defense against military groups—groups involved in destabilizing the host country—thereby weakening their position in any confrontation with Israel.
They also facilitate the rapid shifting of the conflict to enemy territory. There is no contradiction between forward defense and offensive initiative, as the former is essentially a deferred offensive; in this sense, forward defense constitutes a component of the attack itself.
- Understanding the reality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a perpetual conflict between Israel and the Arabs:
According to this perspective—a view strongly endorsed by the author—the Palestinian national movement is a Western, fabricated narrative stemming from post-colonial guilt.
The Palestinian struggle against Israel, and its periodic resurgence, is nothing more than a renewed Arab effort to fight Israel and bring about its destruction.
In practice, the depth of the conflict with the Palestinians—and their refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish entity—underpins the belief that no solution exists.
This is precisely why there is principled opposition to any political, geographic, or security separation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (favoring instead the occupation of all historic Palestine) and to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
According to this view, security is to be achieved by intensifying settlement expansion across all the territories (occupied Palestine)—both within and beyond the “Green Line.”
However, Arab residents of Israel who choose to remain here would be granted residency rights and independent local self-governance (which would entail the revocation of their current citizenship).
- Settlements and Settlers as a Fundamental Security Element:
This represents a return to the security principles of the “settlement era”—the period prior to the declaration (of the establishment of the Zionist regime)—when security was maintained through settlement activity, the decentralization of defense forces, and reliance on paramilitary groups (Zionist terrorist organizations).
- The Priority of Industrial and Security Autonomy:
Israel’s security-oriented economy is heavily dependent on long supply chains; therefore, priority must be given to domestic production and investment in the defense technology sector—specifically military industries, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence—over other sectors.