Ofer Winter’s party advocates a proactive military doctrine, rejects Palestinian statehood and promotes a fundamental reassessment of Israel’s approach to Gaza.
National security occupies a central place in the political platform of Amcha Yisrael, the new right-wing party led by former Israeli military commander Ofer Winter.
The party’s policies reflect Winter’s professional background and the wider political consequences of the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks.
At the centre of the platform is a call to move away from policies based primarily on containing threats and toward a more proactive security doctrine.
The proposal is part of a longstanding debate within Israel over deterrence, military initiative and the political objectives of armed conflict.
From deterrence to preemption
Amcha Yisrael argues that Israel should seek to eliminate developing threats rather than wait for adversaries to initiate attacks.
In the party’s formulation, national defense should involve identifying dangers early and taking action before hostile organizations or states strengthen their capabilities.
The distinction between preemptive action and deterrence is significant.
Deterrence seeks to discourage an adversary from taking hostile action by establishing the likely consequences.
A preemptive strategy places greater emphasis on acting before a threat is carried out.
Such an approach raises questions about intelligence reliability, military risk, international law and the possibility of escalation.
Its effectiveness depends on the accuracy of threat assessments and the consequences of the action taken.
The future of Gaza
Winter’s party has also advanced a controversial proposal concerning the future of the Gaza Strip.
It supports what it describes as voluntary emigration by residents of Gaza.
The party presents the proposal as part of a long-term security solution following the October 7 attacks and subsequent war.
The idea raises substantial humanitarian, diplomatic and legal questions.
International law prohibits forcible transfer and deportation of protected civilians from occupied territory, subject to narrowly defined exceptions.
Whether any proposed migration program could be genuinely voluntary would depend on the conditions under which decisions are made, the availability of meaningful alternatives and the absence of coercion.
The proposal would also require consideration of countries willing to receive migrants, civilian protection and the wider consequences for regional stability.
Opposition to Palestinian statehood
Amcha Yisrael opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state.
This places the party among Israeli political movements that reject a two-state solution as a future framework for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The party argues that Israeli security requires maintaining strategic control and preventing the development of additional threats.
Supporters of Palestinian statehood offer a different argument: that a negotiated political settlement addressing Palestinian self-determination and Israeli security is necessary for long-term stability.
The debate involves competing interpretations of security, sovereignty and the political rights of both peoples.
The relationship between military experience and policy
Winter’s experience as an IDF commander provides an important context for his approach.
He served in multiple combat and senior command positions and led the Givati Brigade during the 2014 Gaza war.
But military experience is only one part of determining national policy.
Security decisions are also shaped by diplomacy, economic constraints, humanitarian obligations and the legal limits on the use of force.
A national security platform must therefore address not only its stated objectives but the practical means by which those objectives could be achieved.
For Amcha Yisrael, this includes explaining the conditions under which preemptive operations would be authorized, how civilian populations would be protected and what political arrangements would follow military action.
The party’s security proposals offer a clear expression of its ideological priorities.
Their practical consequences remain matters for public scrutiny and debate.
