Unveiled Sunday, just nine days before the Zionist regime’s Oct. 27 parliamentary elections, the three-page document advocates preemptive strikes, military deterrence and buffer zones along Israel’s borders, presenting an aggressive security agenda without providing detailed plans for implementing its central proposals.

The bitter dispute has exposed a familiar struggle within Israel’s political establishment, where rival leaders trade accusations of incompetence and manipulation while competing to present themselves as the guardians of a security system battered by years of conflict.

Opposition leader Yair Lapid ridiculed the document as “superficial” and “bizarre,” comparing it to something written by the free version of an artificial intelligence chatbot.

Gadi Eisenkot, a former Israeli army chief of staff and leader of the opposition Yashar party, described it as “empty pages filled with slogans,” accusing Netanyahu of leaving a “strategic vacuum” in Israel’s security policy.

The criticism comes as Netanyahu seeks another term amid unresolved questions over the security failures preceding the October 2023 Hamas attack and the military campaigns that followed.

A doctrine built around escalation

Titled “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Security Doctrine,” the document was prepared with assistance from the National Security Council and published on the Israeli regime’s website.

Netanyahu claimed that military operations in Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran had eliminated an imminent threat of nuclear annihilation and dismantled an Iranian-led network surrounding Israel.

On that basis, he called for shifting from containment and defense toward preemptive attacks, stronger intelligence capabilities, expanded military deterrence and buffer zones wherever deemed necessary, without specifying their locations or the neighboring territories that could be affected.

The doctrine identifies Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Yemen as major threats, alongside precision-guided missiles, drones, cyberattacks and international efforts to isolate Israel.

It also advocates military superiority, expanded domestic arms production, investment in advanced technologies, settlement in what Netanyahu calls the “Land of Israel,” and stronger regional alliances.

Yet the absence of an operational roadmap has raised questions about whether the document offers a coherent security strategy or repackages military escalation as a political achievement.

Maps, rivalries and accusations

During the presentation, Netanyahu displayed regional maps identifying perceived threats and geopolitical alignments, including a grouping labeled “Sunni Diamond Alliance” that included Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan.

The presentation did not establish that these countries were formal military allies or that Netanyahu regarded all of them as adversaries.

Meanwhile, opposition leaders accused the prime minister of using security rhetoric to divert attention from accountability, domestic divisions and deteriorating international relations.

Lapid questioned Netanyahu’s refusal to establish an official commission of inquiry into the October 2023 security failures and highlighted contradictions between his declared commitment to national unity and policies that have deepened divisions within Israeli society.

Eisenkot similarly accused Netanyahu of manipulating public perceptions, stoking fear and distracting voters from what he described as lies and racism in the election campaign.

He also challenged the prime minister’s claims of military success, arguing that Hamas retained armed forces in Gaza and Hezbollah was rebuilding its capabilities in Lebanon.

Eisenkot pledged that an opposition-led government would approve a formal national security strategy within 150 days of taking office.

As election rivals accuse one another of undermining Israel’s security, their confrontation resembles a struggle between competing centers of the same embattled political order: each seeks to discredit the other while defending a system whose policies have brought devastation to Palestinians, prolonged regional conflict and intensified scrutiny of the Israeli regime’s military and political leadership.