Militarily, Israel remains one of the most capable states in
the Middle East. Its intelligence infrastructure, air power, and multi-layered
defence systems have significantly strengthened deterrence. Several adversaries
are either weakened, fragmented, or operating under constraints not seen in
previous decades. From a purely conventional standpoint, Israel’s strategic
position appears more secure than in many earlier phases of its history.
Yet this is only one side of the equation. On the ground,
security is not experienced in abstract balances of power. It is experienced
through sirens, shelters, alerts, and the unpredictability of escalation. For
civilians—particularly children growing up amid periodic conflict—security
becomes a lived rhythm rather than a stable condition. Even when attacks are
intercepted or contained, the psychological imprint of uncertainty remains. This
is where Israel’s central paradox emerges - growing military strength has not
translated into a proportional sense of psychological security.
The reason lies in the changing nature of conflict. Traditional
wars between defined states have increasingly been replaced by asymmetric
threats—rockets, proxy forces, cross-border raids, and regional instability.
These forms of confrontation do not require parity to create disruption; they
require only unpredictability. As a result, even a militarily dominant state
can remain socially alert, frequently mobilized, and psychologically exposed.
Within Israeli society, this produces a dual perception. One
strand believes Israel is stronger than ever, capable of managing multiple
fronts simultaneously. Another strand, equally present, sees a country that
remains encircled not necessarily by conventional armies, but by persistent and
evolving threats that rarely disappear entirely.
Netanyahu’s political approach has reinforced this condition
of “managed insecurity”—a doctrine in which deterrence is maintained not by
eliminating threats, but by continuously containing them. This may strengthen
strategic positioning in the short term, but it also prevents a full transition
from conflict management to post-conflict normalcy.
The result is a society that oscillates between confidence
and anxiety. Military superiority coexists with civilian vulnerability.
Tactical successes coexist with strategic uncertainty. And periods of calm are
often interpreted not as resolution, but as interludes between escalations.
The question is not whether Israelis believe their enemies
are weaker or stronger. The more accurate question is whether they believe
threats can ever be fully removed from their horizon.
For many, the answer remains uncertain. And it is in that
uncertainty—more than in battlefield outcomes—that Israel’s modern security
condition is ultimately defined.
