The six foundations of Israeli national security: Israel reveals its strength and fragility after October 7

Writer: Major General: Ahmed Issa

At a moment when Israel is preparing for new elections, the Mind Israel Foundation for advanced strategic thinking, which was founded and headed by retired Major General Amos Yadlin, former head of the Military Intelligence Division and former head of the Israel Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), came out with a remarkable study that this time is not concerned only with Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah, or with the arms race in the region, but rather with an attempt to answer the deeper question: On what basis will Israel’s power be established in the coming decades?

About 100 Israeli experts participated in preparing this study, and it identified six files that the institution considers critical issues that require major and rapid decisions: Israel’s regional position, human capital, the relationship between the economy and security, governance and national immunity, demographic shifts, and the relationship with the United States and the Jewish diaspora.

While MIND has not published the study to date, its central message was stated by MIND’s Vice President, Dr. Avner Golub, in a post on the organization’s website on the

The study suggests, as Golub explained in his publication, a shift in Israeli strategic thinking, especially in the foundations on which Israeli national security should be based after October 7.

The first foundation: from wall to wall

According to Golub, Israel cannot remain satisfied with Jabotinsky’s concept known as the “iron wall,” which is based on waiting for opponents at its borders and deterring them with force. In his view, the experience of October 7 showed that the opponent could develop “behind the wall.”

So MIND proposes what it calls “Iron Wall 2.0”: keeping the military wall strong, but simultaneously trying to shape the environment on the other side of it.

Here, the Arab region is at the heart of the new vision: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, along with other countries, could form elements of a regional network that Israel seeks to build.

The idea goes beyond political normalization to building mutual dependence in technology, security, and academia. That is, Israel does not just want to be a state that maintains relations with its neighbors, but rather to become a state that these countries see as having their interests linked to cooperation with them.

Military power requires an economy and society

The second basis relates to human capital, and the third relates to the relationship between the economy and security.

Here the problem of a long war arises: How does Israel maintain a high defense budget, a large army, and advanced technological investment, without weakening the economy that finances this force?

Israeli military capability is linked, ultimately, to the economy's ability to produce resources, technology, and skills.

This is why human capital becomes a national security issue. MIND says education is the factor at the base of all six issues; It is what affects the quality of human capital, technological capacity, opportunities for economic participation, and national cohesion and immunity.

This is not a marginal note, as MIND, in another article published in September, explicitly placed education at the heart of national security, linking it to maintaining military, economic and technological advantages, and to increasing opportunities for participation between different sectors of society.

The Israeli interior is part of national security

Perhaps the most sensitive points of study are those related to governance and national resilience.

Golub cites four factors that can lead to the erosion of states from within: declining social cohesion, weak confidence in state institutions, the primacy of short political gains over long-term national interest, and stagnation that prevents adaptation to changes.

Thus, Israel moves from a traditional definition of national security that focuses on the external enemy, to a broader definition that sees society, the state, institutions, education, and the economy as all components of security.

Here lies the paradox of the study: Israel may be at the peak of its military power, but at the same time it wants to prevent internal weaknesses from turning into restrictions on this power.

Demographics: military, society and economy

The study places demographic transformations within the six files, which is normal in a country that relies heavily on the population’s participation in the army, economy, and taxes.

This is why the demographic question is linked to issues of conscription, the participation of Haredim and Arabs, the labor market, education, and social spending.

Golub points out that the next government will have to deal with the issue of conscription, the integration of Haredim and Arabs, and building an infrastructure suitable for the technological age, in addition to increasing participation in the state’s economic success.

Washington is no longer enough alone

The sixth basis relates to the relationship with the United States and the Jews of the diaspora.

The study does not mean abandoning the American alliance; Rather, it calls for not relying on him alone. Therefore, it proposes diversifying relations and building regional partnerships, so that Israel has additional sources of power and influence.

This point is consistent with MIND's broader conception of national security, which includes among its core issues the American partnership, relations with Europe, the Middle East, and the Palestinians.

What does this vision mean for the Palestinians?

The importance of the study for Palestinians lies not in using it to predict the collapse of Israel. This is not what the study says at all. On the contrary: its declared goal is to prevent internal erosion and make better use of the elements of Israeli power.

Its importance lies elsewhere: the study reveals how an Israeli strategic institution views the sources of strength and weakness in the state.

First, Israeli power is not only military. It is a system that brings together the military, technology, education, economy, foreign relations and social cohesion.

Second, Israel wants to move from containing the regional environment to shaping it. This means that normalization and economic, security and technological partnerships are not separate files from Israeli national security, but rather have become part of it.

Third, the Palestinian issue cannot be isolated from this regional environment. If Israel wants to build a regional network that includes Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, the future of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will remain intertwined, to varying degrees, with the reshaping of the regional order.

Fourth, the study reveals that Israel itself realizes that military force alone does not guarantee sustainability. Education, economics, governance, demography, and social immunity have become, in the eyes of this institution, part of the battle over the future of the state.

Here lies the most important significance for Palestinians and Arabs: The document is not required to be read as a declaration of Israel’s weakness, but rather as an Israeli map of sources of strength and areas of concern.

in conclusion

MIND Israel's vision can be summed up in a simple equation: Strong army + strong economy + human capital + social cohesion + effective governance + regional and international relations = sustainable national security.

Therefore, the “Iron Wall 2” proposed by the establishment does not mean abandoning military power, but rather adding a new element to it: building bridges and shaping the regional environment instead of simply defending against it.

It is, in essence, an Israeli attempt to move from the question: “How do we protect Israel from the region”? To a broader question: “How do we build a region in which Israel is an influential part of the security, economic, and political system”? Here lies Israel's strategic dilemma, from which it appears that Israel will not be able to escape forever, especially after it committed genocide crimes against the Palestinians, as these crimes raised in the consciousness of the peoples of the region, especially the Palestinians, a question: How can we live with a state and grant it security after it committed and carried out genocide crimes against an authentic component of the peoples of the region? Which will not permanently remove the rust from most of the foundations of its national security.

This transformation is what makes the study worthy of Arab and Palestinian attention. Because it does not only provide an Israeli diagnosis for what comes after October 7, but it also reveals the direction that some Israeli strategic elites are thinking about for the coming stages and confirms, on the other hand, that Israel’s security is behind doors and not in the distant hands of Washington.