The article argues that recent executive overreach and politicization have severely undermined established norms of U.S. civil-military relations. To restore professional standards, the incoming Congress must actively exercise its oversight powers, moving beyond mere criticism to demanding transparency in defense policy and personnel decisions. Key reforms include enforcing meritocratic promotion processes, requiring documented justification for senior officer removals, and preventing the partisan use of the military. These actions are crucial for bolstering public trust and ensuring the military remains a nonpartisan instrument of civilian control.
De-Hamasification of the Gaza Strip: Learning from Western and Arab Models of Deradicalization
English Summary
The memorandum argues that rebuilding Gaza after the October 7 war requires more than disarmament and infrastructure repair; it requires a deliberate "de-Hamasification" process to dismantle Hamas’s ideological and institutional dominance. INSS contends that Western deradicalization templates (e.g., postwar Germany and Japan) are poorly suited to Gaza’s current social and political conditions, and instead highlights contemporary Arab "civic-transformative" models as more applicable. Its reasoning emphasizes a combined approach: sustained security demilitarization, Arab-led religious and political legitimization, re-education toward tolerance, and economic rehabilitation tied to a credible political horizon. Strategically, the paper implies that Israel and regional partners should pursue an integrated security-political-religious framework to build a durable post-Hamas governing alternative and reduce long-term instability.
中文摘要
該備忘錄主張，於 10 月 7 日戰爭後重建加薩，不能僅止於解除武裝與修復基礎設施；更需要一套有意識、具規劃性的「去哈瑪斯化」進程，以瓦解哈瑪斯在意識形態與制度層面的主導地位。INSS 認為，西方去激進化範本（如戰後德國與日本）與加薩當前社會與政治條件契合度不足，因而強調當代阿拉伯「公民轉型」模式更具適用性。其論證重點在於綜合性路徑：持續性的安全去軍事化、由阿拉伯方面主導的宗教與政治正當化、導向寬容的再教育，以及與可信政治前景掛鉤的經濟復健。就戰略層面而言，本文意涵是以色列與區域夥伴應推動一體化的安全—政治—宗教框架，以建立可持續的後哈瑪斯治理替代方案，並降低長期不穩定風險。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
The article argues that Donald Trump's unique and prolonged lame-duck period, coupled with domestic political pressures, makes him dangerously prone to international instability. Having exhausted major diplomatic gambits, Trump is expected to channel his energy into high-stakes, unilateral actions, primarily targeting adversaries such as Iran and Cuba. These potential actions—ranging from fresh strikes in the Persian Gulf to attempts at regime change—carry a significant risk of destabilizing regional security and triggering a global economic crisis. Policymakers must anticipate this pivot to high-risk foreign policy to mitigate potential international flare-ups.
-
3.
The Blue Wave signals significant voter frustration with cost of living and inflation, giving Congress a mandate to prioritize affordability and cost-reduction measures. Economically, the rapid build-out of AI data centers is creating localized stress, driving up skilled labor wages and straining resources, while also facing constraints from power grids and potential local regulatory backlash. Policymakers must manage this 'sequencing issue'—addressing rising costs before full productivity gains from AI can materialize—and anticipate shifts in global data center infrastructure as the market matures.
-
4.
The U.S. is drastically reducing core funding to multilateral institutions, withdrawing from numerous bodies due to perceived misalignment with national interests. While multilateral channels offer critical advantages—such as pooling resources for global public goods and managing risk in fragile settings—the U.S.'s funding remains heavily 'earmarked,' which effectively 'bilateralizes' the system and undermines shared burden-sharing. This practice, coupled with deep cuts, diminishes the multilateral system's effectiveness and efficiency, particularly in humanitarian aid. Policy recommendations suggest the U.S. must adopt a systematic, published strategy for aid channel choice and shift from restrictive project-level earmarking to broader thematic funding to restore global cooperation.
-
5.
The article analyzes the deep ideological split within the Democratic Party regarding the future of U.S. foreign policy, pitting centrists against progressives. Centrists generally advocate for restoring a reformed U.S.-led international order and strengthening alliances, while progressives argue for a multipolar world that prioritizes transnational threats like climate change and AI over geopolitical competition. This division is most pronounced in the Middle East, where centrists push for greater pressure on Israel and a regional settlement, a shift largely welcomed by progressives. The core finding is that these internal debates threaten to consume a future administration with indecision, making it difficult for the U.S. to project a coherent and unified global strategy.