BICOM

What happened: Former IDF Chief of Staff Lt-Gen Gadi Eisenkot gave a wide-ranging interview to Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, his first since his January retirement, and addressed many of Israel’s pressing security dilemmas, including the regional campaign against Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and a future US defence treaty.

• Eisenkot criticised the recent increase in public statements by Israeli officials about IDF strikes in Lebanon and Iraq, calling the loss of ambiguity ‘a serious error that harmed Israel’s security.’ He denied that there had been a real change from the prior ‘policy of ambiguity,’ and thought that after the election ‘everyone will return to the correct principles.’ Eisenkot warned about such public statements boomeranging against Israel, adding: ‘When we acted without boasting, this allowed a zone of deniability to Qassem Soleimani, Hezbollah and even Daesh.’
• Eisenkot said a future defence treaty between Israel and the US was: ‘unnecessary, it has no logic.’ Eisenkot warned a treaty would require Israel to expose all of its military capabilities as well as coordinate any operations that run the risk of complicating your ally’s position. ‘In the last 3-4 years we attacked thousands of targets across the Middle East without making headlines: against Daesh, against Iran’s military entrenchment in Syria, against Hezbollah’s capabilities and more. But it wouldn’t have been possible to do all this inside the envelope of a defence pact.’
• Eisenkot highlighted the threat posed by Hezbollah’s precision missile program but stressed that the group did not yet possess such capabilities. He did not rule out the possibility that Hezbollah may acquire such capabilities in future which would, he said, lead Israel to seriously consider a pre-emptive strike.
• Asked about the lack of victory in Gaza, Eisenkot said that from mid-2018 the IDF’s campaign to neutralize Hezbollah’s cross-border tunnel network effectively took precedence, since there was a real risk (’20 percent’) of escalation into a wider war.
• Eisenkot said that strengthening Hamas rule in Gaza was a ‘serious strategic error, we need to bring an end to Hamas rule in the Gaza Strip’. He added that while this may not happen immediately, Israel’s long-term objective should be a “moderate body’ taking over control of the territory which in Eisenkot’s mind ‘can only be the Palestinian Authority’.

Context: The interview was conducted alongside retired IDF general Gabi Siboni, Eisenkot’s co-author on an upcoming report for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Institute for National Security Studies titled ‘Guidelines for Israel’s National Security Doctrine.’

• The paper is meant to update traditional concepts in Israeli military strategy, matching them with the changing realities of the Middle East. It is also meant to connect decision-makers on the political level and senior IDF commanders.
• A major part of the paper (and interview) dealt with the appropriate force posture for the modern IDF and the future of the conscript army. Eisenkot was adamant that no cuts should be made to Israel’s overall force posture (tanks, fighter jets, etc) and that the IDF should not move to a volunteer/professional model.
• With regard to the changing face of military strategy, the Eisenkot-led “campaign between wars” featured prominently, with Israel being, he said, ‘one of the most advanced in the world in this area.’ The US military also conducts so-called ‘Gray Zone’ warfare but it focuses more on diplomatic, economic and psychological efforts. ‘They’re lacking the use of force element,’ Eisenkot said.

Looking ahead: Eisenkot’s interview has already made headlines in Israel, primarily because he lamented the loss of ‘ambiguity’ surrounding Israel’s regional campaign – a latent criticism of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahy’s pre-election rhetoric. In this manner the interview could be used by Netanyahu’s opponents for political gain. Yet Eisenkot’s statement regarding the Hezbollah cross-border tunnels being a higher priority issue (and higher priority threat) than the violence from Gaza confirms the prime minister’s messaging from late last year.

• The most consequential news coming out of the interview will likely be Eisenkot’s determination that Hamas rule in Gaza has to end. Eisenkot was previously viewed as highly supportive of economic and financial inducements to Hamas, if only to stabilise the humanitarian situation in the territory. His statement now that the group should not be strengthened may provide the government succour for a harder-line Gaza policy – up to and including a major offensive – in the near term.​​​​​​​