Israeli Expert: Israel is Becoming a 'New Sparta' and Adopting a Paranoid Security Doctrine

Israeli Professor Yagil Levy, a prominent expert in strategic affairs and civil-military relations, warned of the growing state of 'security schizophrenia' and military arrogance within the Israeli leadership following the events of October 7. Levy noted that Israel is effectively sliding towards a 'New Sparta' model, a description previously used by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about two years ago to express his vision for the future of the Hebrew state.

In his critical reading, Levy believes that current Israeli behavior can be framed within a frantic pursuit of what is called 'permanent security.' This term, which he borrowed from historian Dirk Moses, describes the state's aspiration to achieve absolute and permanent immunity from all threats. This aspiration is not content with eliminating current dangers but extends to attempting to erase any potential future threat through excessive force.

The Israeli expert explained that this approach is subject to a 'paranoid' consciousness that ultimately leads to the production of self-fulfilling threats, leaving no room for political or deterrent compromises. According to Levy, the pursuit of a final solution in this context is necessarily linked to policies of extermination, displacement, or imposing absolute control over population groups classified as an existential threat to the state.

Levy reviewed Israel's history with this concept, noting that for many years it pursued permanent security in a 'soft' form that recognized the limits of power and the constraints imposed by international law and the American position. He cited the 1973 war as an example, where Israel then realized the limits of its military capabilities, which led it to withdraw from Sinai in exchange for peace with Egypt, despite its previous description of those borders as 'Auschwitz borders.'

However, the events of October 7, according to the analysis, led to the collapse of all barriers that had constrained the Israeli paranoid logic, pushing the state to adopt a more rigid and violent version of 'permanent security.' Levy considered that this shift was driven by the assumption of overwhelming military superiority and a wide margin of international tolerance for unprecedented Israeli military operations.

In a direct critique of the field results, Levy pointed out that Israel killed tens of thousands of civilians and destroyed entire residential neighborhoods in the Gaza Strip merely to pursue a limited number of fighters. He also noted the effective expansion of borders through the establishment of buffer zones within the territories of neighboring countries, in an attempt to impose a new security reality based on complete regional disarmament.

Regarding Iran, the professor stated that Israel rejected all diplomatic solutions that restrict nuclear capabilities without eliminating them, preferring to resort to direct military action. This approach reflects a desire to permanently remove the missile threat, even in cases where Iran does not initiate direct attacks, which reinforces the logic of controlling others and changing regimes.

Levy warned that the pursuit of absolute security necessarily entails restricting democracy and curbing internal opposition, as the security of individuals and groups is subordinated to an abstract goal. In this context, protection gaps in border cities like 'Kiryat Shmona' become mere acceptable collateral damage in order to achieve the goal of destroying the capabilities of adversaries like Hezbollah.

Levy also criticized the transformation of Israeli prisoners in the new military consciousness into mere secondary 'bargaining chips' in the face of major strategic goals. He affirmed that political considerations have become entirely subject to military logic, where the timing of diplomatic negotiations is determined based on windows of opportunity available for targeted assassinations instead of seeking peaceful solutions.

The analysis suggests that Israel's unilateral effort to enhance security necessarily pushes adversaries to try to bridge their weaknesses by all available means, which repeats previous historical scenarios. The inevitable result of this clash is an increase in insecurity rather than its achievement, as the adversary is forced to respond with greater force whenever it regains some of its military strength.

Levy concluded that the 'permanent security' doctrine requires the depletion of national resources and their sacrifice on the 'altar of security,' with the delusional hope that the adversary will never be able to overcome its weakness. He affirmed that Netanyahu was not mistaken when he promised that this path would lead Israel to become a 'Spartan' state living on the edge of a sword and lacking the foundations of civil stability.

On the other hand, intelligence analyst Yossi Melman reinforced this view by indicating that Netanyahu's government has an agenda to keep conflicts burning for purely electoral considerations. Melman explained that the decision to go to war in Lebanon would have been made even in the absence of provocations, to ensure the continuation of the state of emergency until the next elections in the summer or fall.

Permanent security aims not only to eliminate immediate dangers but also future ones, and therefore it is subject to a paranoid consciousness that produces self-fulfilling threats.