|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
On the commemoration of October 7, 3W explained how it first changed our perspective on the geopolitics of the Middle East, and then formed our current perspective. As to this current perspective, we said:
“It is clear to us now that Israel leads the thinking, and that it has developed an ability to either convince or coerce the elite political circles in the US to go along with the plans it comes up with… Israel is operating on the basis of a “three rings” strategy.
The first ring are the territories that directly border Israel, such as Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan heights and southern Lebanon. These regions Israel is aiming to militarily occupy, depopulate, then colonize with Zionist settlers, before finally annexing.
The second ring are the Arab countries beyond the first ring, such as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Egypt. These regions Israel wants to bring into an Israel-dominated hemisphere via the Abraham Accords. To achieve this, these countries are to be weakened militarily, and politically destabilized, such that their ruling elites will accept an Abraham Accord on the basis of Israel’s terms, without there being any negotiation or compromise on the part of Israel.
The third ring are the non-Arab Muslim countries Iran, Turkiye, and Pakistan. These countries Israel sees as its most dangerous enemies, since these countries have large populations, capable militaries, and majority citizens that are sympathetic to Palestine. These countries Israel therefore wants to see weakened by war and civil strife.”
Shortly after we wrote that analysis, Tamir Hayman, director of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), former head of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF)’s intelligence branch, described what officially is his country’s National Security Concept. This Concept has not been formally articulated or presented to the public, nor is it bindingly defined within the defense establishment, he says. But in practice, however, its principles inform decision-making and dictate Israel’s approach to security. The principles of this Concept are three:
First, Israel’s “Jewish identity” takes precedence over its democratic system of government. 3W notes that this formalizes Israel’s historical domestic arrangement where non-Jews are second class citizens, while the non-Jewish inhabitants of territories occupied or annexed by Israel are what could be called “third class citizens”. Or, in other words, it means Israel has chosen to remain an Apartheid-state.
the non-Jewish inhabitants of territories occupied or annexed by Israel are what could be called “third class citizens”. Or, in other words, it means Israel has chosen to remain an Apartheid-state.
Second, peace is a means rather than an end, and war is the foundational state. What this means, Hayman says, is that any arrangement with Arab actors is “temporary and deceptive”. 3W notes that this means that Israel does not act in international relations to achieve peaceful coexistence. It acts to achieve domination over its neighbours through military means. Any peace agreements it enters is, from the Israeli perspective, a temporary agreement intended to deceive the opponent, and prepare opportunities for military attacks on its neighbours. Since October 7, this has been clearly visible, with Israel at no stage honouring anything in any agreement it signed regarding Gaza or Lebanon, we at 3W add. While we at 3W are not surprised by this, therefore, it does create problems for the “Israeli apologists” who always say Israel only defends itself and responds to military attacks by others. Israel’s primary security doctrine says things are the other way around.
Third, the Arab states are not states. This means that Israel sees the Arab states not as genuine nation-states. They are “collections of tribes and ethnic groups lacking a shared history and a foundational national vision.” 3W notes, that this effectively means Israel sees itself under no moral obligation to aim for peace with its neighbours. If its neighbours are not states, there is no entity that Israel can agree peace with. If Israel’s neighbours are just tribes, uncivilized hordes, then they can only be dealt with through continuous war against them. This, 3W notes, was the security doctrine of the Roman Empire vis-à-vis the northern Europeans. Hayman indeed says that because Israel’s neighbours are not states, “undermining their stability is viewed as a natural process”.
If its neighbours are not states, there is no entity that Israel can agree peace with. If Israel’s neighbours are just tribes, uncivilized hordes, then they can only be dealt with through continuous war against them
Fourth, absolute priority for offence. Israel will actively engage in the sowing or unrest of civil strife among its neighbours, attack them militarily to keep them weak and impoverished, and where needed occupy their territory to provide Israel with what we at 3W have been calling “buffer zones” but Hayman describes as “forward defense zones”. At 3W we note that Israel has since long behaved in this manner. But anyone who noted this, would immediately be smeared as an antisemite, since “Israel only defends itself”. Now it is on the record, however, that for Israel “defense” means causing civil war on other countries, attacking other countries without cause (under internationally accepted norms), and occupying the territories of other countries. These are all hardcore crimes against humanity, the stuff that Israel accuses others of – an example of “projection” if there ever was one. We also note here that Hayman says that the Jewish settlers who move into territories occupied by Israel are part of the Israeli Security Concept. “Defense is established by creating communities and outposts in all areas of friction with the Arab population, in Judea and Samaria, and in security zones in Syria, Lebanon, and the Gaza Strip,” he writes. In other words, it is incorrect to describe these people as “settlers”. They are a core part of an offensive army, even though they may not be wearing a uniform.
Israel will actively engage in the sowing or unrest of civil strife among its neighbours, attack them militarily to keep them weak and impoverished, and where needed occupy their territory to provide Israel with buffer zones.
Fifth, Hayman indirectly recognizes that through this Security Concept, Israel will eventually become an international pariah state akin to South Africa during Apartheid. Israel’s Security Concept therefore says it should aim to sever dependence on the US, and achieve “industrial defense independence”. 3W would note that the meaning of this ambition is clarified by Israel’s efforts to achieve formal integration of the US and Israeli militaries and security industries, through the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2027. This NDAA drives further integration between the US defense industrial base and Israel’s, through creation of an executive agent position within the Pentagon who would seek out and advocate for co-production opportunities, writes The Military Times. This NDAA came comes amid a dramatic shift in US public opinion about military aid to Israel, MT noted. It makes clear, in the 3W view, that what the Israeli Security Concept really targets is not a breakup with the US. It is complete integration with the US, without there being any ability for elected officials to exercise influence or control the amalgamated body, leaving it under total Israeli control. This way Israel becomes independent from the US – from US public opinion, that is.
through this Security Concept, Israel will eventually become an international pariah state akin to South Africa during Apartheid
With this National Security Concept in mind, one can analyse the national security doctrine Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented on Sunday. As part of the presentation, he displayed a map of the “Greater Middle East” region which signalled a security approach that prioritises preemptive military action, the expansion of buffer zones, and the pursuit of new regional partnerships, writes Al Jazeera. On the map, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan are grouped as the “Sunni Diamond”. Iran and its allies in Lebanon and Yemen are the “Axis of Resistance”. An Israel-UAE grouping is described as the “Hexagon Alliance”, and includes Ethiopia, Djibouti and Greece, as well as Somaliland, Puntland, and the territories controlled by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in Sudan and Khalifa Haftar’s self-styled Libyan National Army. The map guides Israel’s decision-making around alliance formation, the establishment of security zones on Israel’s borders, and military attacks, AJ notes.
There are hardly differences between the two “national security strategies”, notes Responsible Statecraft. Although Timur Hayman is closely associated with Gabi Eisenkot, Netanyahu’s main rival in the upcoming Israeli elections, on foreign policy Netanyahu and Eisenkot are pushing essentially the same opinions. It is only on domestic matters that the two promote slightly differing views.