Former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eizenkot may have decided to sit the coming elections out, but his military rank still make his opinion on matters of national security much sought after.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
In a recent interview, Eizenkot presented his political-security outlook, saying he believes that while the challenges Israel currently faces on defense and security are not to be taken lightly, they do not constitute an existential threat.
Since the 1948 War of Independence, the term "existential threat" has been the main benchmark by which Israel's captains have assessed its security situation, but this dogma was severely undermined in the wake of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and since then, the consensus within Israeli society as to what justifies going to war has been consistently unraveling.
To a large extent, the concept of "existential threat" belongs in the 20th century, and continuing to use it is simply no longer useful for assessing Israel's security situation.
The IDF's operational doctrine presents a complementary concept, saying, "National security is an area that pertains to dealing with any threat to the national existence and to vital national interests."
Commenting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Eizenkot stated that Israel must seek to "separation from the Palestinians."
This view is shared by many senior defense officials, but it, too, is stuck in the 20th century. The separation from the Palestinians in the West Bank was essentially outlined and completed in the early 1990s by then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and the separation from the Gaza Strip was completed with the 2005 disengagement.
"Striving to separate" from the Palestinian further spells the eviction of over 150,000 settlers in Judea and Samaria. This theory makes do with "preserving the main settlement blocs" that constitute no more than 3% of Judea and Samaria.
Advocating said separation, Eizenkot demands "rigid security arrangements," but here, a principled controversy arises, in terms of the perception of how essential the Judea and Samaria settlement enterprise is to national security.
In my opinion, any security arrangement that is devoid of a settlement outline similar to the current one is unfeasible.
Eizenkot argued that "Israel needs the kind of leadership that leads the country in a way that advances its national values, to formulate a national vision." I totally agree with that. This is where the debate should begin but we do not seem to be striving for the same national vision.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
