Israeli opposition slams Netanyahu’s new security doctrine as ‘empty slogans’ ahead of elections

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled a new national security doctrine Sunday advocating preemptive strikes and buffer zones along Israel’s borders, drawing sharp criticism from opposition leaders, who dismissed it as a collection of empty slogans aimed at masking his government’s security failures. Released just nine days before Israel’s Oct. 27 parliamentary elections, the three-page document outlines 10 principles for what Netanyahu presents as a revamped security strategy following years of regional conflict. Opposition leader Yair Lapid ridiculed the document as “superficial” and “bizarre,” saying it looked as though it had been written by the free version of an AI chatbot. Gadi Eisenkot, a former Israeli army chief of staff and the leader of the opposition Yashar party, dismissed it as “empty pages filled with slogans,” accusing Netanyahu of leaving a “strategic vacuum” in Israel’s security policy. The document’s release comes as Netanyahu campaigns for another term amid criticism of his government’s handling of security failures preceding the October 2023 attack on Israel by the Palestinian group Hamas and the wars that followed. Opposition leaders accuse him of exploiting security threats for electoral gain while avoiding accountability for those failures. Preemptive strikes and buffer zones Titled “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Security Doctrine,” the document was published on the Israeli government’s website and prepared with assistance from the National Security Council. In its introduction, Netanyahu claimed that Israel’s military operations from Gaza and Lebanon to Yemen and Iran had eliminated an imminent threat of nuclear annihilation and dismantled an Iranian-led network encircling Israel. He presented those claimed achievements as grounds for a fundamental shift in Israel’s security approach, giving priority to preemptive attacks over containment and defense. The document calls for strikes against emerging threats along with stronger military deterrence, intelligence capabilities and early warning systems. It also advocates establishing buffer zones along Israel’s borders when deemed necessary, without identifying where they would be located or which neighboring territories could be affected. Iran and allied armed groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen, feature prominently among the threats identified by Netanyahu. Other perceived threats include precision-guided missiles, drones, cyberattacks and efforts to isolate and delegitimize Israel internationally. The doctrine also calls for maintaining military superiority, strengthening domestic arms production to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers and investing in advanced technologies including artificial intelligence, quantum computing and space capabilities. It further encourages settlement in what Netanyahu calls the “Land of Israel” and emphasizes national unity and expanding regional alliances. Yet the document offers no detailed operational plan for confronting Iran or implementing the proposed buffer zones, despite presenting them as central elements of Israel’s security approach. Its emphasis on national unity and stronger international alliances also stands in contrast to criticism from opposition leaders who accuse Netanyahu’s government of deepening domestic divisions and damaging Israel’s foreign relations. Regional maps and alliances During a presentation accompanying the doctrine, Netanyahu displayed maps depicting major geopolitical threats and regional alignments. One map, bearing the logo of Germany’s Friedrich Ebert Foundation, grouped Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan under the label “Sunni Diamond Alliance.” Other classifications included Iran and allied groups under the label “Axis of Resistance,” alongside a grouping involving Israel and the United Arab Emirates. The presentation did not make clear whether Netanyahu regarded all the countries shown as adversaries. Nor did the labels establish the existence of formal military alliances among the countries depicted. Netanyahu has long relied on maps and visual presentations to convey his assessment of regional threats and Israel’s military capabilities, an approach his critics accuse him of using selectively to exaggerate dangers and reinforce his image as a strong security leader. Opposition questions Netanyahu’s record Lapid argued that the doctrine offered little beyond broad declarations and failed to confront Netanyahu’s responsibility for Israel’s previous security failures. He criticized Netanyahu’s refusal to establish an official commission of inquiry into the failures surrounding the October 2023 attack as well as his record on expanding normalization agreements with Arab countries. Lapid also pointed to contradictions between the document’s principles and Netanyahu’s policies, particularly over military service exemptions for ultra-Orthodox Jews, deteriorating international relations and deepening divisions within Israeli society. Eisenkot said the document reflected the “strategic vacuum” left by Netanyahu, arguing that its publication just nine days before the elections was an attempt to divert attention from the government’s record. He accused the prime minister of manipulating public perceptions, stoking fear and seeking to distract voters from lies and racism surrounding Netanyahu’s election campaign. The former military chief also challenged Netanyahu’s account of Israel’s military achievements, claiming that Hamas continued to maintain armed forces in Gaza while Hezbollah was rebuilding its capabilities in Lebanon. He also accused Netanyahu of failing to achieve key wartime objectives and refusing to investigate the failures preceding the October 2023 attack. Eisenkot pledged that an opposition-led government would draw up and approve a formal national security strategy within 150 days of taking office. The dispute comes as Netanyahu and opposition parties compete to form Israel’s next government, with national security, military accountability and the country’s international standing among the central issues in the election campaign.