Defense Minister Israel Katz on Sunday said that the new rulers of Syria are “pretending” to be more moderate but present an increased danger to Israel.
Speaking to the committee of former national security council chief Yaakov Nagel about how they frame the future structure and budget of the IDF for the coming years and decades, Katz warned of being taken in prematurely by the Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) group, which ousted the Assad regime from Syria.
Katz stated, “Israel must be capable of defending itself using its own power, from any and all threats. The immediate threats to the State have not disappeared, and the recent developments in Syria have increased the severity of the threat.”
He said this is true “despite the moderate vision which the Syrian rebel leaders are presenting.”
The defense minister cautioned that it is crucial “to increase the defense budget in relation to these elevated threats.”
More specifically, Katz said that the IDF’s future structure and budget must allow it to act against any existential threat without needing approval from any third-party country, using its own technology and defense platforms while trying to preserve support from the US.
On August 5, the Prime Minister’s Office announced the establishment of the committee led by Nagel to “review the budget and force buildup” status of the IDF.
Then, on September 5, the PMO updated that the committee had already finished collecting the data it needs to start moving toward conclusions.
According to a PMO statement, the committee had already met with all relevant officials from the IDF, defense ministry, finance ministry, Bank of Israel, and elsewhere and had received data and recommendations from the general public.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also met with the committee to discuss their progress and to give them updated directives regarding their work.
On October 15, the committee published an interim report on its progress.
Interim recommendations for air defense systems, ground forces
Some interim recommendations include expanding the procurement of munitions and air defense systems, improving the maneuvering capabilities of the ground forces, elevating naval superiority, and addressing manpower issues.
Moreover, the report tackles the development of new weapons and upgrading the country’s border defenses.
Last week, one committee recommendation went forward in a public way toward modernizing the navy.
The navy signed a NIS 2.8 billion deal to acquire five advanced Reshef missile ships from Israel Shipyards.
These ships are 1,000 tons lighter than the new Saar 6 ships. They are intended to replace the 40-year-old Saar 4.5 ships at the level of a maritime vehicle that can move faster and be more maneuverable.
Earlier statements from the committee said that they would produce a full report which could lead to a complete reshaping of the defense establishment’s doctrine, force buildup priorities, and budget priorities by around early December, though such reports are often published months later than expected due to the complexities of national security and often also political considerations.
At the same time that the Nagel committee has moved forward relatively quickly, Netanyahu has refused to allow a state inquiry of any kind to examine the failures leading to the October 7 disaster.
Many observers have raised questions about how the Nagel committee will be able to reach the optimal conclusions regarding Israel’s future defense posture without a full review of the failures of October 7, including at the political level.
To date, only the IDF is working on probes of the October 7 failure, and these are limited to studying the military’s errors and do not examine the political echelon’s errors.
The Nagel committee also moves forward to change the face of the military as Netanyahu competes with IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi Halevi over that issue, with Halevi postponing resigning due to his part in the October 7 failure and continuing to appoint a range of military officials throughout the high command and levels close to the high command.
