by Our Correspondent in Doha
The Israeli military has launched a strategic and technological transformation that seems pulled from the pages of a science-fiction novel—except it is real, unfolding rapidly, and raising questions that range from tactical advantage to ethics and accountability. With artificial intelligence (AI) tools now integrated into battlefield decision-making, a rising military-tech partnership with India, and a vision of multi-domain warfare that increasingly includes the United States, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is orchestrating a complex new defense doctrine. Reporting by Haaretz has provided a rare window into the scale and ambition of this shift, as well as the risks.
This transformation begins with AI, which Israeli military leaders believe will fundamentally reshape how wars are fought. Colonel Rotem Bashi, commander of the IDF’s Matzpen software development unit, recently expressed astonishment at the capabilities of the army’s newest AI platform. Speaking to Haaretz, Bashi said, “When I compare the quality of the answer from the system with the raw information it received, I don’t understand how the system connected it all.” Dubbed an “operational information factory,” the tool aggregates data from drones, satellites, closed-circuit cameras, and battlefield sensors, then uses machine learning to offer commanders actionable insights in real-time.
This system is not some theoretical project—it has already entered IDF operations. Bashi explained that after years of development, the AI platform is now operational on the IDF’s closed network and is expected to be deployed on a broad scale by the end of the year. It offers a kind of supercharged military Google, capable of responding to highly specific battlefield questions such as: “Who is the Hamas battalion commander in Shujaiyeh?” or “Where are tunnel entrances located beneath this Lebanese village?”
But unlike a consumer search engine, this tool’s recommendations may determine who lives and who dies. As Haaretz notes, concerns have grown about how much trust commanders might place in algorithmic answers under pressure, especially when time is limited and verification is difficult. Bashi insists the system will never replace human decision-making and emphasizes the importance of oversight, stating, “We still need commanders for the ethical aspect, and there’s no substitution for the experience they’ve accumulated.”
These concerns are not hypothetical. Investigations by The Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Local Call have revealed troubling information about another IDF AI system, known as Lavender. This tool reportedly flagged tens of thousands of targets in Gaza during the war, relying on pattern recognition and metadata rather than human intelligence. The system’s high output—often praised internally—was also linked to mass civilian casualties. Some Israeli intelligence officers told reporters that Lavender had a “light trigger finger,” an unsettling phrase in a context where seconds can lead to death or survival.
The introduction of these AI systems highlights a paradox: while they promise increased efficiency and precision, they also risk reducing warfare to an automated, opaque process in which accountability becomes murky. “Anyone who knows anything about AI’s inaccuracies in civilian life,” wrote Haaretz, “should fear the way matters of life and death on the battlefield could be affected by AI.”
Yet, this high-tech transformation doesn’t end with software. Alongside AI development, the IDF has expanded its network of strategic alliances, particularly with India. In the second part of the Haaretz report, senior Israeli defense officials revealed plans to deepen ties with New Delhi through joint training, intelligence sharing, and possibly defense production. These moves reflect not only Israel’s shifting geopolitical priorities but also its pragmatic response to changing regional threats and global alignments.
The U.S. has long been Israel’s most important military partner, and Washington still plays a central role. However, American wariness about getting entangled in Middle Eastern conflicts, particularly after the withdrawal from Afghanistan, has led Israeli officials to seek additional partnerships that can complement or, in some cases, substitute for U.S. involvement. India, with its massive military and its own strategic concerns regarding Iran and China, fits the bill.
Israeli defense sources told Haaretz that New Delhi is particularly interested in cooperation on technologies for defending against UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), which are becoming increasingly central to modern conflicts. This includes not just drones, but the AI and communications systems that support them. India is also interested in participating in regional air defense initiatives, and while it may not join the U.S.-led naval task force in the Red Sea, it has reportedly expressed support for Israeli efforts to monitor and deter Iranian maritime operations.
This budding partnership reflects a broader IDF strategy called “multi-domain combat”—a framework that integrates land, air, sea, cyber, and space warfare into a single command structure. Israel sees this model as essential for fighting wars against technologically capable adversaries like Hezbollah or Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, who use hybrid tactics and operate across several domains simultaneously. The IDF’s new digital command centers, many developed with input from Matzpen, are built to respond in real time to threats across these varied theaters of war.
In this context, AI becomes more than just a tool—it becomes the nervous system of the modern battlefield. As Haaretz reports, Bashi’s team is working to integrate natural language interfaces into the AI system so that commanders can interact with it via voice or chat apps, a feature designed for speed and accessibility in the heat of battle. In Bashi’s words, this “democratization of information” allows anyone in the IDF—not just trained analysts—to query vast databases of operational intelligence and receive immediate feedback.
Still, the dangers remain clear. “In the heat of battle,” Haaretz cautions, “not every commander is likely to be a stickler about sources.” There is a real risk that over-reliance on machine outputs, particularly those not fully understood by the user, could lead to fatal errors—especially when systems like Lavender have already shown a tendency to prioritize speed over accuracy.
To mitigate such risks, Bashi insists that the rollout of AI is being done carefully, first in non-lethal contexts where time sensitivity is lower. “Only later,” he explains, “will we take the system to places of support for decision-making.” Even so, Israel’s track record suggests that once a tool proves effective in producing military results—especially in terms of speed or scale—operational caution may give way to battlefield necessity.
Within the IDF, the rapid adoption of new tech is part of a broader shift in military culture. The Matzpen unit, which Bashi leads, now trains not only programmers and engineers but also operational analysts who work directly with combat units. These personnel serve as liaisons between commanders and the AI systems, interpreting outputs and flagging uncertainties. This human-machine partnership is seen as a vital check on the potential overreach of automation.
The final stage of this transformation involves synchronization. One of the systems being integrated with the AI platform is MapIt, which layers battlefield data onto real-time maps. This will allow commanders to visualize threats, targets, and terrain simultaneously—essentially giving them a dynamic, AI-assisted war room at the tactical level. It’s a kind of digital omniscience, and while it offers undeniable advantages, it also poses questions about surveillance, data governance, and the long-term implications of predictive warfare.
Perhaps most telling is the IDF’s interest in Agentic AI—the next-generation form of machine intelligence capable of sophisticated reasoning and autonomous problem-solving. Bashi admits the IDF is only beginning to explore this space, and he acknowledges the “ethical and precision” concerns such systems raise. But the mere fact that Agentic AI is on the table suggests that Israel’s military revolution is far from over—it is still accelerating.
What emerges from the Haaretz reporting is a picture of a military caught between innovation and restraint, ambition and ethics. The Israeli Army is clearly racing to build a more agile, intelligent, and lethal force, one that can respond to threats in milliseconds and across continents. But the same tools that empower it also create new vulnerabilities—technical, legal, and moral.
In some ways, this transformation mirrors broader societal tensions around AI: the allure of efficiency and prediction, balanced against the risks of bias, opacity, and loss of control. On the battlefield, however, these tensions are not theoretical. They are lived out in real time, often by young soldiers making decisions that could ignite or end a conflict.
For Israel, surrounded by hostile actors and ever-aware of existential threats, the appeal of such tools is obvious. But as Haaretz repeatedly warns, the cost of misplaced trust in AI could be devastating—not only for its adversaries but for Israel’s own soldiers, its democratic institutions, and the civilians caught in the crossfire.
Israel’s military transformation is not just a story about war—it’s a story about power, technology, and the limits of human judgment. The IDF may be rewriting the rules of warfare, but whether this new script leads to greater security or deeper instability will depend not just on the code they write—but on how wisely they choose to use it.
