Former IDF chief of staff and current MK Gadi Eisenkot sharply criticized Prime Minister Netanyahu's security management, saying that needing American approval for operations in Gaza and Lebanon breaks a fundamental Israeli security doctrine — self-defense without foreign authorization. Eisenkot said Netanyahu has shattered an 80-year-old principle that must be restored. (Ynet)
Former IDF chief of staff and National Unity MK Gadi Eisenkot has issued a broadside against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's security policy, in remarks published by Ynet. Eisenkot argued that Israel's dependence on Washington's green light for operations in Gaza and Lebanon represents a rupture in the country's foundational security doctrine. "If we need American approval for activity in Gaza and Lebanon, something deeply fundamental is broken in our basic interest to defend ourselves by our own forces," Eisenkot said. He charged that Netanyahu has dismantled an eight-decade security consensus, calling the breach "grave" and something that needs to be rebuilt.
Eisenkot, a former IDF chief and war cabinet member in the current conflict, has emerged as one of the most prominent internal critics of the government's wartime management. His remarks echo those of other former security chiefs, including former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who have each accused Netanyahu of strategic paralysis or over-reliance on American discretion. As The Zioneer has previously reported (June 8), Bennett said Netanyahu is "incapable of deciding" on the fronts, and Gallant argued that a failure to respond forcefully in Beirut emboldened Hezbollah. However, where Bennett and Gallant stressed a leadership deficit or missed operational chances, Eisenkot has framed his critique in institutional terms — a breach of Israel's founding security architecture.
The statement arrives against a backdrop of persistent US-Israeli tensions over the pace and scope of operations, with several reports indicating that Washington has privately pushed for restraint in Lebanon and set conditions on arms transfers. Eisenkot's allegation targets the sovereignty dimension specifically, placing the criticism on constitutional rather than tactical grounds.
Source and signal
- Internal intake