Dr Ashraf Abul Saud
Israel frequently portrays itself as a nation committed to peaceful coexistence with its neighbours. A deeper examination of its strategic behaviour, however, raises important questions about whether peaceful coexistence is genuinely a priority in its long-term thinking.
To address this issue fairly and thoroughly, it is essential to analyse three influential policy documents that have significantly shaped Israel’s political and security consciousness towards the Middle East.
The first document, known as the Yinon Plan and formally titled “A strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” was authored by Oded Yinon and published in 1982 in Kivunim, a periodical issued by the World Zionist Organisation.
It explicitly called for the fragmentation of Arab states into smaller, competing ethnic and sectarian entities, while weakening the central governments and armies of major countries, such as Egypt, Iraq, and Syria.
The underlying objective was to prevent any unified military threat and to position Israel as the dominant regional power capable of imposing its hegemony over a divided neighbourhood.
The plan specifically envisioned breaking Iraq into three separate states, namely a Shiite entity in the south, a Sunni one in the centre, and a Kurdish state in the north.
It also proposed dividing Syria along sectarian lines into Alawite, Sunni, and Druze regions, while encouraging internal divisions in Egypt that could lead to the emergence of a Coptic state in the south.
In Lebanon, it advocated exploiting existing sectarian fragmentation to advance Israeli security interests.
The second document, titled “A clean break: A new strategy for securing the realm”, was published in 1996 by the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies.
Drafted by a team that included prominent American neoconservatives, such as Douglas Feith, it was presented to Benjamin Netanyahu shortly after he became prime minister.
This report urged Israel to abandon the “land for peace” formula that had guided the Oslo peace process and to adopt instead the principles of “peace for peace” and “peace through strength”.
It advocated more assertive and offensive policies towards the region, including the acceleration of regime change in Iraq by removing Saddam Hussein as a key strategic goal.
The document further recommended encircling and pressuring Syria, strengthening ties with Turkey and Jordan, and using proxies in Lebanon to exert political influence.
In the Palestinian arena, it called for a policy of hot pursuit, marginalising the existing leadership, and seeking alternative partners.
Many of these ideas later formed the practical roadmap for Israeli foreign policy during Netanyahu’s periods in office and served as a blueprint for reshaping the Middle East through military and political leverage.
The third document, “Navigating through turbulence: America and the Middle East in a new century”, was released in January 2001 by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
It reflected the convergence of American and Israeli strategic thinking by emphasising the need to strengthen Israeli deterrence through maximum military superiority, making Israel the cornerstone of regional stability and the protection of broader American interests.
The report advocated the containment of so-called rogue states, such as Iraq and Iran, by force, managing the Palestinian conflict in preparation for the post-Arafat era, and maintaining a sustained US military presence to guarantee the uninterrupted flow of energy by any means necessary.
Critics argue that this document helped shift international relations away from diplomatic optimism towards a more brutal phase of crisis management, where fabricated pretexts were sometimes used to justify direct military interventions and threats against neighbouring countries.
Taken together, these three documents provide a revealing insight into the strategic mind-set that has influenced much of Israel’s approach to its geographical surroundings.
While Israel consistently presents itself as a peace-seeking nation, the recurring themes of regional fragmentation, rejection of significant territorial compromises, and reliance on superior military power and proactive intervention suggest that ensuring unchallenged dominance and security in a weakened neighbourhood has often taken precedence.
Dr Ashraf Abul Saud is a writer and an international relations scholar.
