Recent analyses of Israel’s national security apparatus have underscored the urgent need for reforms in decision-making processes, military-society relations, ethical standards, and the depoliticization of security institutions. These assessments come amid ongoing challenges faced by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and the broader security establishment.

One significant concern relates to the effectiveness and structure of Israel’s national security decision-making channels. The handling of the Submarine Affair is cited as an example where key decisions were made without adequate planning or the involvement of all relevant government bodies. Similarly, reports about potential campaigns targeting regime change in Iran suggest that crucial institutions may have been excluded from the deliberation process. While national security situations often require speed and confidentiality, experts argue that these circumstances do not justify circumventing institutional procedures designed to evaluate assumptions, explore alternatives, and assign accountability. In a context of multifaceted threats, reliance on ad hoc or improvised decision-making could undermine Israel’s security interests.

Rebuilding the connection between the IDF and Israeli society is another pressing priority. Over the past three years, some reservists have served extensively, placing considerable strain on themselves and their families. Observers stress that a democratic government must ensure military sacrifices are necessary and fairly distributed. The persistent political deadlock on issues such as the conscription of the haredi population compounds these challenges. Addressing this matter decisively is seen as essential to share the defense burden equitably and maintain public confidence.

The ethical framework guiding the IDF also requires reinforcement. Years of intense combat have tested the military’s code of conduct, which emphasizes principles such as purity of arms, professionalism, and mutual responsibility. Recently, controversy has surrounded the Military Advocate-General’s office, beginning with investigations into alleged abuse by reservists and expanding into disputes over military prosecutions more generally. This disputation has illustrated how soldiers’ behavior and accountability mechanisms can become entangled in political tensions. Maintaining impartial and credible investigative processes is deemed vital to uphold the army’s ethical standards and sustain trust among troops and the public.

A further dimension relates to safeguarding the apolitical nature of Israel’s security agencies, including the Shin Bet and Mossad. These bodies hold significant powers over both Israeli citizens and foreign nationals, powers that must be exercised professionally and in service of the state rather than political agendas. Recent controversies involving senior figures in these institutions have sparked broader debates over the proper balance between government oversight and institutional independence. While elected officials have the authority to set policy and appoint leadership, the heads of security agencies must remain loyal to the state and law rather than transient political interests. Preserving this distinction is critical both for democratic governance and the agencies’ operational effectiveness.

Israeli voters will go to the polls on October 27, choosing the leadership that will inherit these security challenges. Analysts emphasize that the forthcoming government must address the imperative of reforming national security decision-making, ensuring shared military responsibility, protecting the IDF’s ethical integrity, and maintaining the professionalism of security institutions. The interplay between security and democracy is viewed as mutually reinforcing rather than conflicting, with public trust, institutional discipline, and sound governance seen as essential to sustaining Israel's strength in the face of continued threats.

Prof. Amichai Cohen, vice president of research at the Israel Democracy Institute and faculty member at Ono Academic College, highlights that the next administration’s legacy will largely depend on its ability to uphold these principles as it navigates complex security demands.