New Israeli “National Security” Recommendations: Gaza “B” Areas and 3 Options with Iran and Syria

The Israeli National Security Studies Institute (INSS) has issued new guidelines for the “National Security Doctrine and Policy for 2025-2026,” which it described as “a professional and ethical compass for the defense institution, as well as the foundation for public discourse and strategic thinking.”

The Institute stated that “With the onset of a new era in the Middle East, where Israel continues to wage a war whose goals and objectives have not yet been fully achieved, these principles are presented to Israeli decision-makers and the public. These were formulated over the past few months by various experts at the National Security Studies Institute.”

The Institute added that, on October 7, 2023, “the Jewish people experienced the most devastating catastrophe since the Holocaust. Both the political leadership and defense institution failed in their task of securing Israel, as well as other entities related to national security, including civil society organizations and research institutes.”

It emphasized that this failure occurred “whether through direct responsibility or indirect association. The crisis and the subsequent war taught us a lesson in humility and the importance of doubt. As researchers, we do not claim to hold a monopoly on truth, and this document is no exception. However, in light of the hard-earned lessons, we present the National Security Studies Institute’s recommendations, fully aware that prophecies are for fools, and events unfold quickly. Any attempt to formulate long-term policy involves the risk of arrogance.”

The Institute added that “For this very reason, this document holds particular importance. It represents an effort to propose a stable strategic vision for Israel and recommend policies capable of withstanding the test of time and change. If the reality changes or if the basic assumptions prove false, this document will lose its validity and will need to be reviewed accordingly.”

The Institute believes that “after months of war, it is time to leverage Israel’s military achievements to gain diplomatic advantages, conduct a comprehensive investigation, and establish a government commission of inquiry. This commission must clearly and transparently present to the Israeli public what happened on that horrific day of October 7, 2023, and who is responsible for the failures. Every participant in securing Israel in recent years, including the authors of this very document, must be held accountable.”

It further explained that “The current war has reshaped the Middle East amid a global conflict between forces seeking to dismantle the liberal order and those defending it. In this context, the region is witnessing a tripartite competition: the so-called ‘Axis of Resistance’ led by Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood (supported by Turkey and Qatar), and an alliance of moderate countries—including Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and Gulf states—seeking stability and mutual progress.”

The Institute noted that “Weakening both the Iran-Hamas axis presents Israel with both risks and a variety of opportunities. Perhaps for the first time, there is an opportunity to pursue a bold diplomatic security vision: resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a position of strength, while deepening strategic relations with Gulf countries to weaken and isolate Iran. This network could form the basis of a regional bloc aimed at enhancing the global standing of its members.”

Regarding global relations, the Institute recommended “strengthening ties with the United States through a defense treaty, bolstering bipartisan support, and engaging American Jews. To avoid diplomatic isolation, Israel must reaffirm its shared democratic values with the West, an effort that would be aided by progress on the Palestinian issue.”

On the regional front, the Institute argued that Israel must prepare for three potential scenarios with Iran:

1. 1. A new nuclear agreement between the U.S. and Iran, where Israel should shape the negotiations rather than resist them, ensuring that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons.

1. 1. A rapid Iranian nuclear escalation, which would require an immediate military response, ideally coordinated with the United States.

1. 1. A prolonged stalemate, where economic pressures and covert operations must continue to weaken the regime.

The Institute also mentioned that in Syria, there are three potential outcomes requiring distinct countermeasures:

1. 1. If an Islamic state is formed, Israel must confront jihadist threats near its borders.

1. 1. In the case of a stable Syria with a moderate government, Israel should establish secretive relationships to monitor developments.

1. 1. In a fragmented Syria, Israel must support moderate factions to prevent instability from spilling into the region.

Regarding Turkey, the Institute noted that “Given Ankara’s role in political Islam, Israel should view it as a potential threat, but not as a central military threat, while maintaining diplomatic engagement. Israel should also push for an end to Turkey’s trade boycott.”

On Lebanon, the Institute emphasized that “Israel must prevent Hezbollah from building military capabilities and implement the 2024 ceasefire agreement and UN Security Council Resolution 1701. If Lebanon stabilizes, Israel should seek border agreements and even peace talks.”

On the Palestinian front, the Institute viewed that “Israel should prioritize the return of all hostages, even at the cost of a ceasefire and withdrawal of its army from Gaza. Israel must also retain full security control over the Gaza Strip (similar to Area B in the West Bank) to prevent Hamas from rebuilding its capabilities. Civil governance in Gaza should be transferred to a neutral, non-partisan Palestinian entity (without Hamas or Fatah involvement), supported by regional and international backing.”

It concluded that “Given the current realities, the framework must be redefined with comprehensive reforms in the Palestinian Authority. In the context of potential Saudi-Israeli normalization, trust-building measures should be implemented between the two sides, ensuring a complete separation of territories, governance, and an independent economic framework.”

The Institute mentioned that “Regardless of this map, Israel must fight Palestinian terrorism unconditionally, in coordination with regional actors and the reformed Palestinian Authority’s security forces. No land should be annexed outside of a comprehensive agreement, as unilateral annexation would deepen Israel’s diplomatic isolation and accelerate demographic changes, eventually turning it into a binational state with an Arab majority.”

Regarding the occupied territories of 1948, the Institute affirmed that “The return of all hostages is essential for Israel’s national recovery. Failure to secure their release would deepen the ongoing internal crisis.”

It emphasized that to “enhance national cohesion, Israel must reduce disparities by legislating on sharing security burdens and civil status, maintaining a balance among all branches of government without exacerbating social divisions, and wisely expanding the defense budget based on a nationally agreed-upon security strategy, rather than short-term responses to the current war.”

The Institute concluded by stating that “Improving security conditions allows for more resources to be allocated to education, infrastructure, healthcare, and the economy to address certain studied risks. Reconstruction efforts must prioritize rehabilitating war-torn areas according to their unique needs. The Western Negev and Northern Israel must thrive, thus strengthening Israel’s national resilience. Rebuilding these war-torn regions is a national priority, with the necessary resources allocated for their recovery, growth, and national-level resilience.”