Netanyahu’s Security Map Draws New Lines of State Power

Benjamin Netanyahu’s new security doctrine puts preemptive strikes and “buffer zones” at the heart of Israel’s regional strategy, as the prime minister seeks voters’ support before the October 27 parliamentary elections. His office published the doctrine and a map of regional alignments on Sunday, October 18. The map sorts states, unrecognized entities and non-state actors into competing blocs. The doctrine calls for “priority to prevention and offense over containment and defense.”

A map of competing power

The Prime Minister’s Office said the “War of Redemption necessitated an upgrade of fundamental principles” in Israel’s security doctrine. It listed preemptive strikes, stronger home-front defenses and cementing Israel’s status as a regional power. The statement also said opportunities had emerged for new alliances “in our region and beyond.”

The map puts Israel and the United Arab Emirates in a “Hexagon Alliance,” alongside Greece, Ethiopia and parts of India. It marks southwestern Sudan, controlled by the Rapid Support Forces, as friendly to Israel and the UAE. United Nations experts and media reports have described extensive Emirati support for the RSF, led by former Janjaweed leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, which has faced widespread accusations of committing genocide in Darfur. The UAE has officially denied backing the RSF.

A separate “Sunni Diamond Alliance” brings together Egypt, Turkiye, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The latter three signed the Mecca mutual defence pact in August. Jordan, despite its peace treaty with Israel, appears as friendly to that alliance rather than aligned with Israel. The map also aligns Khalifa Haftar’s government in eastern Libya with Israel, and includes Yemen’s Southern Transitional Council, a UAE-backed separatist movement that dissolved in January 2026 and re-emerged as the Transitional Council of South Arabia.

Israel became the first country to recognize Somaliland earlier in 2026. Multiple media reports say Israel and the UAE have expanded their military presence in the breakaway republic of Somalia. Ethiopia appears friendly to Israel as it nears full-scale war with Eritrea, where Israel has long sought a Red Sea military base, Middle East Eye reported. Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran appear in an “Axis of Resistance.”

Germany’s Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Institute first published the map in May 2026. Netanyahu’s earlier “hexagon of alliances” proposal envisaged cooperation among Israel, India, Greece, Cyprus and unnamed Arab, African and Asian partners against what he called “radical” regional alliances. It hasn’t become a formal alliance. Commentators in Israel and the international press have called the grouping a branding exercise, not a binding military pact, and point out that countries such as India prioritize non-alignment and pragmatic trade.

Security, with election timing

Al Jazeera reported that analysts saw political calculations behind the doctrine and map. Netanyahu faced criticism over his conduct in office, an ongoing corruption trial, his handling of the October 7, 2023 attacks and the wars that followed. With the election eight days away, he sought to strengthen his “Mr Security” credentials among voters.

U.S. President Donald Trump endorsed Netanyahu on Sunday. Netanyahu warned that “in two years, a president... who is extremely hostile to Israel could come to power [in the United States].” He argued that Israel must “expand our network of alliances and develop capabilities that make us a valuable asset” to other countries if U.S. policy changed.

Mohanad Hage Ali, deputy director for research at the Malcolm H Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center, said the presentation focused on competing regional blocs and buffer zones. He said the framework “incubates and nurtures existential fears, which would lead Israeli voters to feel the need for a decisive leader.” Netanyahu, Hage Ali said, could cast himself as “the devil you know” to voters reluctant to embrace political change. He warned that expanding military control could produce “more conflict and more ethnic cleansing” under the guise of security buffers. He also said publicly associating regional factions with Israel could damage their standing in the Arab world.

Gadi Eisenkot, one of Netanyahu’s main election challengers, called the doctrine “two hollow pages, full of slogans that have nothing to do with a security concept.” Former Prime Minister Yair Lapid called it “superficial.” Middle East Eye said the presentation could prove awkward for some regional partners and reinforce suspicions among Arab states.

The West Bank’s administrative machinery

A separate opinion article by Ami Ayalon, Gilead Sher and Orni Petruschka urges Israel’s next government to decide explicitly what it intends to do with the West Bank. In February 2026, the government authorized the resumption of land-registration procedures in Area C, allocated an initial NIS 244 million for 2026-30 and created new positions to carry out the process. Hundreds of former senior members of Israel’s security and governmental establishments petitioned the High Court of Justice, arguing that these measures and other administrative changes amounted to de facto annexation. The government described them as steps short of annexation, related to security, land administration and strengthening Israeli control.

The authors argue that sovereignty can take shape incrementally through land administration, planning, settlement, jurisdiction, regulation and governmental authority. They say Israel hasn’t annexed any part of the West Bank, except for east Jerusalem neighborhoods immediately after the war, and argue that the scale of change should follow an explicit government and Knesset decision after transparent public debate.

Their account also identifies the Palestinian Authority as part of the security apparatus: Israeli security officials have long considered coordination with the PA important for preventing terrorism and disrupting attacks, despite the PA’s shortcomings. The authors warn that policies weakening the PA through territorial fragmentation or economic pressure could increase the risk of its collapse, leaving Israel responsible for security and civilian administration across the West Bank. They say such policies could also encourage Jewish terrorism, which they describe as rising, and further violence.

The authors warn that unilateral changes could deepen disputes with international institutions and governments over international law and the Oslo agreements. They say extending sovereignty would force Israel to address Palestinians’ political status and rights: granting citizenship and full political rights would carry demographic and political implications, while maintaining sovereignty without those rights “would amount to apartheid.” The map draws the region as blocs and buffers. In the West Bank, the authors describe power accumulating through administration, while people living under it face decisions made by governments and institutions.