Security agenda

Now, with regard to two types of damages mentioned in the previous section, there are two main pillars of the Israeli security program, each of which is observer of certain types of injuries. First, placing in the United States Security Program: the Israeli government sought to overcome the security threats posed by the actions of domestic opposition groups and political actors at the regional and international levels, and it was looking for increasing its safety factor by placing in the "security program" of a superpower and hegemony. In other words, Israel is seeking for a mutual-supportive agreement with the supreme world powers to prevent other actors attacking it. Although this idea has been somewhat contemplated from the beginning of the establishment of the Zionist regime, the obvious characteristic of the twenty-first century is its objective realization. For this reason, the security equations in the region, as far as concerned to Israel, are in difficulty, and it seems that dealing with a problem called "political Zionism" cannot be easily achieved. The development stages of this idea to its realization as an objective security plan are as follows:
1. The return to the "security": although Israel's establishment was based on ideological ideals, the natural process of affairs showed that the policy of attracting immigrants and managing affairs are not possible based on these ideals; in other words, the practical motivation of these concepts is very little. At this point, thinkers such as Vladimir Zabutnevsky presented the substitution theory of "security considerations" instead of "Jewish aspirations." He, who was the leader of the "Zionists of reconsideration" branch, actually achieved a new combination of "security and ideology" by injecting security considerations into Israel's existential philosophy and prioritizing it, comparing it to ideological components, which could provide the necessary energy for the Zionist movement. Although Japonetsk's idea initially faced serious objections, it was considered as a departure from the Jewish right wing thoughts, but it was noticed by the "six-day war", and the great majority of the Jews understood importance of security considerations; to the extent that the day after six-day war Hakobostz held a major congress in which the principle of the replacement of "security considerations" with "ideological aspirations" was accepted.
2. The priority of the revision "security" of Zabutonsky in the context of historical developments, intense reaction of the Palestinians and Arab countries had found radicalism approach in Israel, which leads to the emergence of a new spectrum of thinkers and statesmen, who respect absolute and undeniable value of security. In this connection, Y. Tabenkin, the leader of the branch called "Agudat Hafuda" in Labor Party of Israel, states that the "Arabs" are angry Nazis of the present era that without the suppression and destruction or expulsion of them, the Israeli society cannot have real security. Despite him, the issue of Israel is nothing more than one point and that is "security". From the political point of view, this idea finds its followers within the formal construction of power, among which we can refer to the views of Begin. He was the first person who distinguished "war" and "massacre" in the political arena. In this regard, "the war, which many Israeli people did not regard as a serious threat according to their previous victories over Arabs, and did not feel necessity of conflict with the Muslims, is not a major problem for the Jews, but " massacre", which according to possibilities of the Muslims seemed a serious and possible danger, was a real threat that Bengin emphasized on its elimination. With this division, Bagin virtually made Jews understand that the "diplomacy" - which they hoped on it - could only stop the war and does not deny "massacre" at all. In this way, Begin weakened the pacifist tendencies and shifted it to the margins of official politics.
3. The ideal (ideological) security: Israeli security program experiences its third major development by advent of Bani Begin. In this way, the thinkers of this period began to reverse the idea (Jacobnensky) and made a new idea that constituted the essence of "security, the true desire of the Jew". "Issar HareIl was one of former Mossad bosses, and he emphasizes:" Security is our ultimate goal, so we must not have the slightest controversy or compromises in this regard. "In contrast to the thesis that peace can cause us a relaxation on the borders, this antithesis can be arranged in such a way that: Standing on the current borders without stepping in the way of ideals will definitely erode the hope of peace. This period can be viewed as the culmination of the rule of extremist rightwing on the Israeli society, in which the boundary between "national security" and "ideological ideals" disappears, and it finds idealistic and ideological "security", which no compromises is permissible about it.
4. Security of the United States: The security of Israel, with its entry into a world that the Soviet Union was no longer in it, is experiencing its fourth fundamental transformation. The fact is that the US government has prevented Israel from being included in its security plan on the basis of internal and international considerations, thereby it attempted to establish its relations with Arab countries - notably Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Gulf states that have a high energy, economic and military value for the United States, but this strategy has changed in favor of Israel in the twentieth century, especially in the early 20th century, and this is the goal of the security of Israel. For example, we can point out important visits such as "Henry Morgenthus ", the American Jewish Appeal (AJA)'s head visit from Israel, the ongoing ambassadorial negotiations with the Israeli government in 1950, or the visit of "Robertson" of the United States from Israel, and each time by Britain's debate, the issue of uncontested American support for Israel and Israel's acceptance as a permanent part of the US Security Plan has been raised, but the US government's negative response or mentioned conditions actually made this policy a failure. In this regard, it is possible to refer to the explicit mention of the Israeli government men in which they stated: "Israel is about to send its soldiers to battlefields that the US government identifies, and in this way the public opinion of Israel is fully justified". However, bitter hard experiences such as the establishment of "the Middle East Command Center" or "Middle East Defense Organization" showed that the US government is very cautious in this regard. September 11, with a change in the atmosphere of American society and politics – in where security became the top priority for the first time since World War II compared to the economy. It made the greatest contribution to the Zionist government. As "Israel" was at the heart of the US security program, and Bush while practical defense of Israel and action in this field, insisted that it would not tolerate any acts of aggression against Israel. The meaning of this statement and US support measures, such as frequent vetoes and military and financial support from Israel, is that Israel is part of the US Security Plan, so it sees itself in a "margin of safety" that roots in the unification of their interests with the hegemony interests. According to the explanations, it is clear that the Israeli government has established its security program in the twenty-first century on the basis of important principles such as those below:
1. The continuation and intensification of the US security conflict with the Islamic world;
2. Effective support of the neoconservative flow for the implementation of its programs and victory in the next round of elections;
3. Strengthening the strategic pitch between the two actors;
4. Institutionalizing the current policies of the US government in such a way that if the government changes, the security program will not undergo major changes;
5. Maximum exploitation of the relative safety status (in the light of the dependence on the hegemony), in the direction of repression of the Intifada, the establishment of security in Israel, and the isolation of the political actors of the Israeli opposition or critics at the regional and international levels.