The beginning of the end of Israel’s ‘permanent security’ doctrine
Israel’s relentless pursuit of 'total victory' has entangled it in an unwinnable war with Iran, eroding legitimacy abroad and deepening moral decay within.
By Meron Rapoport and Ameer Fakhoury April 24, 2026
A fragment of an Iranian missile lodged in the ground in the Golan Heights, April 8, 2026. (Ayal Margolin/Flash90)
In partnership with
The name given to the deadly wave of Israeli bombings in Lebanon on April 8, launched as the U.S.-Iran ceasefire took effect, reveals much about Israel’s regional posture today. Until recently, Israel chose war monikers that would euphemize its overwhelming destruction or rally the home front. The 2014 “Operation Protective Edge” in Gaza, for instance, tried to convey resilience, while the post-October 7 “Iron Swords” campaign in the Strip and this year’s “Lion’s Roar” in Iran sought to signify military strength.
No more: with 100 airstrikes across Lebanon that left 300 dead and over 1,100 wounded, “Eternal Darkness” suggests that Israel’s only goal in Lebanon is death and annihilation. If in 1996, Israel’s killing of 100 Lebanese civilians in the southern Lebanese village of Qana brought “Operation Grapes of Wrath” to a halt, today, murdering hundreds is perceived almost as an end in itself, without even a trace of military or public criticism.
Despite the current 10-day ceasefire in Lebanon, Israel continues to raze villages and civilian infrastructure in areas of the south under its control — an attempt to create a permanent buffer zone and, as in Gaza, permanently prevent residents from returning. At the end of March, Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that the 600,000 Lebanese who lived south of the Litani River would not be allowed to return at the end of the war, and their homes near the border would be destroyed.
In both Lebanon and Iran — wars that came neither as a response to an attack nor to prevent an imminent threat — Israel has appeared to fully adopt the doctrine of “permanent security.” As Israeli political sociologist Yagil Levy recently argued, adopting the term coined by the historian Dirk Moses, this approach aims not only to eliminate immediate threats but future ones as well, through wholesale destruction of civilian life, and expelling or controlling populations. In short, there is no political solution, only a military solution; and what force cannot accomplish, more force will.
This “permanent security” posture was evident first and foremost in Israel’s war on Gaza after the October 7 attacks. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began speaking of “total victory” just days later, the phrase was initially — and quite rightly — perceived by the Israeli public as an attempt to escape his responsibility for the failure. But it represented far more than a rhetorical exercise: the genocide, the ethnic cleansing, and the reduction of entire cities to dust and ashes were the manifestation of “total victory,” supported by the entire Israeli political and military establishment.
Destroyed buildings near a displacement camp, west of Gaza City, March 26 2026. (Yousef Zaanoun/Activestills)
It is no coincidence that the shift occurred specifically in Gaza. Until October 7, the Strip was the prime example of Netanyahu’s signature “conflict management” doctrine in practice — a combination of near-total blockade, above- and below-ground fencing, complete control of the air and sea, and close electronic surveillance of Palestinian daily life, alongside periodic rounds of bombing every year or two that were deemed “tolerable” from Israel’s perspective.
Conflict management also provided a formula for fragmenting and containing Palestinian politics, part of a strategy to defer the question of self-determination. Hamas was “restrained” through a mechanism of deterrence, containment, and the funneling of funds approved by Netanyahu himself, so as to keep tensions at a low intensity. And in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority served as a subcontractor of Israel’s occupation, maintaining the illusion of Palestinian autonomy. Even Naftali Bennett, who now presents himself as an alternative to Netanyahu, bluntly summarized this as “shrapnel in the ass” — a nuisance to be managed, rather than an existential threat.
When the fence around Gaza collapsed on October 7, so did the conflict management doctrine. But this did not bring Israel to seek ways to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians. Instead, it decided to overpower it. And not just with the Palestinians; Israel extended the concept of absolute security to much of the Middle East: Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Qatar, and Iran. Under this doctrine, international law no longer exists, political compromise is gone, and ceasefires do not bind Israel, neither in Gaza nor in Lebanon. This is perpetual war, in which Israel exploits its military superiority to eliminate every threat, large or small, at any distance.
The latest campaign against Iran elevated the concept of “permanent security” to yet another level. It was no longer enough to strike hard at leaders, nuclear facilities, and military targets, as Israel did in June 2025. This time the objective was regime change, in a country of about 90 million people with a civilization thousands of years old — not merely neutralizing a perceived threat, but reshaping the political environment itself.
Yet Israel alone does not have sufficient military power and political legitimacy for such an ambitious move, and American involvement was therefore required. Indeed, Netanyahu managed to convince U.S. President Donald Trump that this goal could be achieved, contrary to more cautious positions voiced in Trump’s cabinet, and so began an Israeli-American war that for a moment appeared to be another step toward achieving “permanent security” across the region.
A U.S. Air Force Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker takes off from Ben Gurion Airport, near Tel Aviv, during the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, March 5, 2026. (Yossi Aloni/Flash90)
And here, in fact, is where this logic is revealed as an illusion. Even if one threat is addressed, another one is immediately produced, thereby exposing the paradox of the entire project: not achieving “permanent security” by ending conflict, but rather its continuous perpetuation through the ever-expanding horizon of threats.
“After Iran, Israel cannot live without an enemy,” Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan noted earlier this month. “Not only Netanyahu’s administration but also some figures in the opposition — though not all — are seeking to declare Turkey the new enemy.” The neighborhood understands how Super-Sparta thinks.
A new Middle East
It is too early to summarize the outcomes of the war, but it already appears that Israel has hit a wall: rather than moving closer to “permanent security,” it finds itself in a more precarious security situation than before. Not only was the overarching goal of toppling the Iranian regime not achieved, but Israel couldn’t even manage to reach bitter stalemate.
In fact, Iran withstood the combined military pressure of the United States and Israel, and as many commentators and experts have argued, succeeded in shifting the arena from a path of military coercion to one of political negotiation, thereby changing the very rules of the game.
A new Middle East is beginning to take shape, one in which the status of both Israel and the Gulf states is eroding. Israel has been forced to halt its attacks on Lebanon, with Washington recognizing the need for a ceasefire with Hezbollah in order to end the war with Iran and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The Islamic Republic, free of sanctions and with geographic, demographic, and ideological depth, is no longer merely a regional player but is on a path toward global power status.
U.S. Central Command forces prepare for mine-clearing operations in the Strait of Hormuz, April 11, 2026. (U.S. Central Command Photo/Wikicommons)
It is this leverage over the Strait that has likely forced Trump to view Iran’s 10-point proposal for ending the war — from lifting sanctions and a U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East to guarantees for the safety of its regional proxies — as a legitimate basis for negotiation. Even now, as the U.S. President attempts to impose a counter-blockade on Iran’s blockade of Hormuz, the Iranian terms have already begun to shape the boundaries of the talks.
The most dramatic point here is not the enriched uranium that remains in Iran’s possession, nor its insistence on continuing its civilian nuclear program, nor even the ballistic missiles Iran fired at Israel and Arab Gulf states for 40 days. Rather, it is Iran’s role in the region. Iran did not comply with the American demand to disavow its allies in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen, but did the opposite. In particular, the United States and Israel are forced to contend with the depth of the strategic link between Iran and Hezbollah: Hormuz will not be opened if Israel continues to bomb Lebanon.
Added to this is an equally significant shift in U.S.-Israel relations, and Israel’s decision to drag the United States into the war may prove to be the final nail in the coffin. In June 2025, Israel acted alone until the last of the twelve days of conflict, striking military targets and assassinating senior regime officials, and Iran responded by firing only at Israel. This time, Washington’s entry into the attack on day one changed the rules of the game, granting Iran legitimacy to broaden the arena by attacking American bases in the Gulf, entangling regional states, and above all closing the Strait of Hormuz. It thus turned a bilateral confrontation into a global crisis of Israel’s own making.
As public polling reveals a dramatic decline in support for Israel among Americans, ending arms sales to Israel is quickly becoming a mainstream position in the Democratic party, with a majority of Democratic senators now voting for such measures. It has become impossible to ignore, as a recent New York Times investigation revealed, that Netanyahu dragged Trump into the war, and the growing backlash is an increasingly clear signal of Washington’s desire to distance itself from Netanyahu’s Israel.
Paradigm vacuum
If two and a half years ago Netanyahu’s “conflict management” paradigm collapsed, we may now also be witnessing the beginning of the end of the “permanent security” doctrine. Both rested on the same assumption — that reality can be controlled through force — and both have failed.
Israelis take cover on the side of a road as a siren warns of incoming ballistic missiles fired from Iran, along Route 1 between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, April 7, 2026. (Dor Pazuelo/Flash90)
The void that accompanies the collapse of both paradigms also reveals the moral decay inside Israeli society. Public discourse, for the most part, is suffused with the language of annihilation. When Trump threatened to erase Iran’s entire civilization, many Americans and people across the world condemned his remarks as genocidal. In Israel, there was silence — the same that prevails while Israeli forces destroy Gaza or carry out ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and Lebanon.
Despite the flood of commentators and politicians who boasted day and night of the war’s “tremendous” achievements, and despite Netanyahu’s assurances that Iran and Hezbollah are weaker than ever, the Israeli public is already beginning to see the cracks. In a Channel 13 poll conducted after the ceasefire with Iran, only 33 percent of respondents believed Israel and the United States had won the war and 28 percent thought Iran had come out on top. A similar poll by Israeli newspaper Maariv found similarly striking figures, which are rarely seen at the end of Israeli wars or military operations.
But to understand the depth of the phenomenon one must be precise: it is the “total victory” paradigm itself that has fractured. First in Gaza, when the Palestinians remained in place and Hamas was not defeated; and even more so in recent weeks, when it became clear that Hezbollah, supposedly defeated, continues to operate and fire dozens and even hundreds of missiles every day. And finally, as Israelis watch Iranian representatives negotiating with the Americans from a position of greater strength than they held before the war, while maintaining control over one of the world’s most important transportation arteries.
Yet this crack in public consciousness does not guarantee political awakening. Without a political project that provides language, direction, and an alternative for Israelis, the growing sense of the government and military’s failure may turn into despair rather than criticism. Such despair has a paradoxical tendency to stabilize the status quo, and may ultimately work in Netanyahu’s favor.
Indeed, the collapse of the conflict management and “permanent security” paradigms do not point to an orderly transition between frameworks. Israel instead is falling deeper into a strategic, political, and moral vacuum in which military violence continues for its own sake, even as it ceases to generate meaning or purpose.
Yet within this vacuum lies the possibility that another paradigm may emerge — one not based on the illusion of control through force, but on agreement, fairness, and recognition of limits. Such a paradigm will not emerge on its own, nor will it be born purely from within; it will depend on international pressures and on the capacity of segments of Israeli society to transform their despair into political critique and renewed political and moral imagination. Otherwise, we will remain in a permanent state of war and of moral, social, and economic decay unfolding faster than we think.
===
Editors’ Note: This article was updated after publication to reflect the fact that the term “permanent security” was coined by the historian Dirk Moses.
A version of this article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call. Read it here.
Israeli society
2026 U.S.-Israeli war with Iran
middle east
Lebanon
Hezbollah
Benjamin Netanyahu
conflict resolution
Local Call
Meron Rapoport is an editor at Local Call.
If two and a half years ago Netanyahu’s “conflict management” paradigm collapsed, we may now also be witnessing the beginning of the end of the “permanent security” doctrine. Both rested on the same assumption — that reality can be controlled through force — and both have failed.
Israelis take cover on the side of a road as a siren warns of incoming ballistic missiles fired from Iran, along Route 1 between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, April 7, 2026. (Dor Pazuelo/Flash90)
The void that accompanies the collapse of both paradigms also reveals the moral decay inside Israeli society. Public discourse, for the most part, is suffused with the language of annihilation. When Trump threatened to erase Iran’s entire civilization, many Americans and people across the world condemned his remarks as genocidal. In Israel, there was silence — the same that prevails while Israeli forces destroy Gaza or carry out ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and Lebanon.
Despite the flood of commentators and politicians who boasted day and night of the war’s “tremendous” achievements, and despite Netanyahu’s assurances that Iran and Hezbollah are weaker than ever, the Israeli public is already beginning to see the cracks. In a Channel 13 poll conducted after the ceasefire with Iran, only 33 percent of respondents believed Israel and the United States had won the war and 28 percent thought Iran had come out on top. A similar poll by Israeli newspaper Maariv found similarly striking figures, which are rarely seen at the end of Israeli wars or military operations.
But to understand the depth of the phenomenon one must be precise: it is the “total victory” paradigm itself that has fractured. First in Gaza, when the Palestinians remained in place and Hamas was not defeated; and even more so in recent weeks, when it became clear that Hezbollah, supposedly defeated, continues to operate and fire dozens and even hundreds of missiles every day. And finally, as Israelis watch Iranian representatives negotiating with the Americans from a position of greater strength than they held before the war, while maintaining control over one of the world’s most important transportation arteries.
Yet this crack in public consciousness does not guarantee political awakening. Without a political project that provides language, direction, and an alternative for Israelis, the growing sense of the government and military’s failure may turn into despair rather than criticism. Such despair has a paradoxical tendency to stabilize the status quo, and may ultimately work in Netanyahu’s favor.
Indeed, the collapse of the conflict management and “permanent security” paradigms do not point to an orderly transition between frameworks. Israel instead is falling deeper into a strategic, political, and moral vacuum in which military violence continues for its own sake, even as it ceases to generate meaning or purpose.
Yet within this vacuum lies the possibility that another paradigm may emerge — one not based on the illusion of control through force, but on agreement, fairness, and recognition of limits. Such a paradigm will not emerge on its own, nor will it be born purely from within; it will depend on international pressures and on the capacity of segments of Israeli society to transform their despair into political critique and renewed political and moral imagination. Otherwise, we will remain in a permanent state of war and of moral, social, and economic decay unfolding faster than we think.
===
Editors’ Note: This article was updated after publication to reflect the fact that the term “permanent security” was coined by the historian Dirk Moses.
A version of this article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call. Read it here.
Israeli society
2026 U.S.-Israeli war with Iran
middle east
Lebanon
Hezbollah
Benjamin Netanyahu
conflict resolution
Local Call
Meron Rapoport is an editor at Local Call.
No comments:
Post a Comment