Israel Katz: New Syrian leaders 'pretending' to be moderate, pose danger to Israel

Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Sunday that the new rulers of Syria were pretending to be more moderate and still presented an increased danger to Israel.

Katz, speaking to the Nagel Commission on Evaluating the Security Budget and Force Building about the framing of the structure and budget of the IDF for the coming years, warned of being taken prematurely by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham who ousted former president Bashar al-Assad’s regime from Syria.

According to Katz, “Israel must be capable of defending itself. 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 that the Syrian rebel leaders are presenting.”

The defense minister cautioned that it was crucial “to increase the defense budget for these elevated threats.”

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 (PMO) announced the establishment of the commission, led by former National Security Council chief Brig.-Gen. (res.) Jacob Nagel, to “review [the IDF’s] budget and force buildup” status.

One month later, the PMO updated that the commission had already finished collecting the data it needed to start moving toward conclusions.

According to a PMO statement, the commission had already met with all relevant officials from the IDF, Defense Ministry, Finance Ministry, Bank of Israel, and elsewhere, as well as having received data and recommendations from the general public.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also met with the commission to discuss their progress and to give them updated directives regarding their work.

On October 15, the commission published an interim report on its progress.

Interim recommendations for air defense systems, ground forces 

Some interim recommendations included expanding the procurement of munitions and air defense systems, improving the maneuvering capabilities of the ground forces, elevating naval superiority, and addressing human resources issues.

Moreover, the report tackled the development of new weapons and the upgrading of the country’s border defenses.

Last week, one commission 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 Sa’ar 6 ships and are intended to replace the 40-year-old Sa’ar 4.5 ships at the level of a maritime vehicle that can move faster and be more maneuverable.

Earlier statements from the commission said 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. However, such reports are often published months later than expected due to the complexities of national security and often due to political considerations.

Though the commission has moved forward relatively quickly, Netanyahu has refused to allow a state commission of inquiry of any kind to examine the failures leading to the October 7 disaster.

Many observers have raised questions about how the Nagel Commission 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 Commission is also moving 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.