|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Former senior Israeli commanders and national security specialists called for a decisive military victory in Gaza and rejected proposals for foreign peacekeeping forces, arguing that only Israeli force can dismantle Hamas and restore deterrence.
Speaking at a conference in Jerusalem, Brig.-Gen. (res.) Danny Van Biran said the conflict must end with the Israel Defense Forces fully defeating Hamas, not by handing security responsibilities to Indonesian or other international troops.
“The Gaza story must end with an IDF decisive victory,” Van Biran told participants. “No foreign forces should be tasked with disarming Hamas. That is Israel’s responsibility alone.”
The event marked the first public presentation of a comprehensive national security strategy by Bithonistim, a right-leaning forum of former defense officials. Many speakers argued that Israel’s current security thinking has drifted away from its founding principles.
Maj. (res.) Omri Cohen said the country had misinterpreted its historic doctrines of deterrence and decisiveness, concepts first articulated by Israel’s founding prime minister David Ben-Gurion.
According to Cohen, decisiveness once formed the backbone of deterrence. Over time, he said, the logic reversed, with policymakers chasing temporary calm rather than pursuing outcomes that permanently removed threats.
Cohen cited the teachings of Yigal Allon, one of the founders of the Palmach, who believed decisive victories accumulated over time to create lasting deterrence. That philosophy, Cohen argued, has largely disappeared.
Instead, Israel increasingly relied on tactical measures, such as periodic airstrikes and limited operations, which he described as short-term fixes rather than a coherent strategy.
He pointed to the “war between the wars” campaign — repeated air operations aimed at blocking weapons transfers through Syria and Lebanon — as an example. While effective in reducing some threats, he said, the campaign created the illusion of control without addressing root causes.
“The defense establishment treated these actions as a strategy, when they were only tools,” Cohen said. “Meanwhile, long-term risks kept growing.”
Cohen warned that complacency had set in. By assuming adversaries were contained, the military reduced preparations for worst-case scenarios, including cross-border ground invasions. That mindset, he said, contributed to shrinking Israel’s ground forces and armored units.
Several speakers argued that rebuilding tank brigades and reserve formations should become a priority, stressing that wars in dense urban environments like Gaza still require large-scale ground maneuvering.
Brig.-Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, former intelligence analysis chief and now head of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, said Israel must first dismantle Hamas militarily but also prepare for what follows.
“Disarm Hamas — but what then?” he asked. “If we don’t understand the ideological motivations behind our enemies, we will repeat the same cycle.”
Kuperwasser said Israeli officials had misread Hamas’s intentions, assuming the group sought mainly economic improvements. In reality, he argued, Hamas remained committed to confrontation regardless of living conditions.
He added that the defense establishment had focused heavily on Iran and Hezbollah while treating Gaza as a secondary front. Proposals for deeper operations before the current escalation were dismissed as unnecessary risks.
“The belief that Gaza was stable proved dangerous,” he said. “We underestimated the threat.”
Col. (res.) Ronen Itzik emphasized the central role of reservists, calling the reserve army Israel’s most important strategic asset. While widely praised during emergencies, he said, reservists often receive little attention or investment once fighting subsides.
“People remember them only in wartime,” Itzik said. “But readiness must be built during quiet years.”
The conference concluded with a call for a broader reset in national defense thinking — moving away from short-term containment and toward decisive campaigns designed to permanently degrade hostile capabilities.
For the assembled officers, the message was clear: security cannot depend on temporary calm or outside actors. Only a coherent strategy, strong ground forces, and sustained political will, they said, can ensure lasting stability.
As Israel weighs its next steps in Gaza, these veterans argue that the country must choose between managing threats or eliminating them. In their view, anything short of a decisive outcome risks repeating the same conflicts again.