“The IDSF also wants to listen to ideas that come from below”

“The movement currently has over 40,000 members, including women and men in their teens to age 80 and older, and this diversity cannot be ignored. That’s why the connection with the movement’s members is, for me, one of the most important tools of Israel’s Defense and Security Forum (IDSF)”, says Itzik Lev, VP of Development at IDSF, who is in charge of the movement’s community relations.

What do you do to connect with your base?

“Many mistakenly think that IDSF includes only military personnel and senior officers, but in fact it is open to anyone with our worldview and anyone who shares our values. We grew by more than 70 percent this year, and the goal is to continue growing at the same rate next year. We offer members of the movement a wide range of unique activities, such as lectures given by senior security officials, and tours given by IDSF experts that take place throughout the country – in the north, in the Gaza Envelope, in Judea and Samaria, and in Jerusalem. The movement has silent WhatsApp groups for receiving updates from the field, each of which has over 1,000 members. Until now, mainly news stories have been posted in these groups, but following surveys we conducted, we realized that the public wanted more than that, and we began disseminating dynamic webinars, event tickets, tours, and unique business benefits in these groups. We treat these groups like a members club”.

A community that is attentive to the public

Lev, who came to IDSF from the field of project management in the municipal context, set a goal for himself to not only increase the number of members in the movement, but also to create a community that would be attentive to its members’ opinions, even those who are not senior military people. Subsequently, he initiated the establishment of the Arena of Insights, a digital system that enables the movement’s members to exchange opinions and raise ideas on current affairs. This is a special system that is also used by local authorities and the military, capable of analyzing large amounts of information.

When did you launch the new public participation system?

“In the second half of 2024. Before that, we used to post open questions on social media, and since there was a very good response from the movement’s members, we started working with the new Arena of Insights system. Every month we pose a different current affairs question. For example, recently: ‘Should we establish a state commission of inquiry or a national commission of inquiry?’ So far, over 1,000 people have responded to each of the questions we asked”.

“A question that was recently posed among the movement’s members through the new system, regarding an investigative committee into the events of October 7, received a large number of responses whose analysis results surprised the movement’s leaders”.

What was the rationale behind the Arena of Insights?

“The idea was to develop the system as a tool through which opinions and ideas could be shared from the bottom up – meaning not only from the senior military officials at the head of the movement to the non-expert public, but also in the opposite direction”. The system analyzes the responses and derives some basic insights from them, which we incorporate in our documents. The goal is to incorporate the movement members’ feelings into the movement’s research and position papers that are conveyed to decision-makers. “The movement sees great importance in public participation and in connecting the grassroots with the professional knowledge of military personnel”.

The wisdom of crowds

A question that was recently circulated among the movement’s members regarding a commission of inquiry into the events of October 7 received a large number of responses – over 700 responses in the actual system and another 326 responses on Facebook. When the content of the responses was analyzed, the movement leaders were surprised to discover that most of them did not lean in one direction but rather toward a compromise between the two poles. “The discussion was very lively, and not unequivocal”, says Lev. “It turns out that aside from the extremists, who express extreme positions, the majority wants a merger between a state committee and a national committee. In other words, most of the public thinks that the commission of inquiry should be state-run with aspects of a national commission of inquiry, in terms of its management and authorities”.

When it comes to a large amount of responses that are so complex and ambiguous, doesn’t that make it very difficult to process the information?

“We know that the more Israelis there are, the more opinions there are. The very connection between the two options we proposed was an innovation that came from the public – it did not emerge as a main option before we circulated the question. This opened another window for us: We realized that there is a majority in the public that is looking for the middle ground. Now the IDSF’s research department will have to process these insights and look for the right integrated model that we will offer to decision-makers”.

How is the information processed?

“First of all, the actual system analyzes the information using AI and extracts insights from it, and then we review its conclusions and test them. After our analysis, a summary of the discussion is published for all movement members who participated in the discussion – for each member regarding what they wrote. Then we send the results to the research department, which processes the information and incorporates it into its reports”.

Does this mean that you learn from the public?

“We are attentive to the movement’s members and want them to be part of our thought process”. Although issues related to Israel’s security still remain the domain of professionals, on other issues we want to hear what the movement’s members feel, and we want to incorporate them in the position papers that our professionals in the research department write. This enables us to combine professional knowledge with the “wisdom of crowds”.

Is there another example of public reactions that caused the movement to change its positions?

“It definitely happened. For example, in response to a question about recruiting Haredi soldiers, we received answers that were more complex than we expected, and they influenced and touched us. When we submitted the ‘8000 Plan’ to the government that dealt with this, there were several points that changed thanks to ideas from the public – for example, the understanding that the frameworks would have to be unique, that the uniqueness of Haredi society must be recognized, that there is importance in outreach within Haredi society and in cooperation with Haredi leaders, and that there is a need for benefits and incentives and a need to change the perception of military service – from a burden to a privilege and an opportunity to contribute to the country”.

In your opinion, does the system actually strengthen the democracy in the movement?

“During the discussion of the open question, all participants see the comments that are written, so you can also see the response to the comment. A kind of round table was created between people, one who could be in Kiryat Shmona, one in Jerusalem, and one in the Gaza Envelope. I think this has a lot of power. The system not only strengthens the senior officials’ familiarity with the voices on the ground, but also strengthens the sense of partnership and diversity among the movement’s members”.

Promoting women to the forefront of the movement

Lev did not complete his military service as a senior officer, but after his discharge from the Border Guard, he continued to work in the security field and acquired in-depth knowledge of domestic security issues. Over the years, he has gained significant experience in managing complex systems and leading operations, mainly in the municipal arena, where he specialized in a variety of fields, including education, security, and project management. He previously served as CEO of the “Merkazei HaTzeirim BeIsrael” [Youth Centers in Israel] network and currently serves as a volunteer member of the Harish City Council.

He also brings the same public spirit – of partnership, transparency, and commitment – to IDSF, where he works to promote a broad and in-depth security discourse. “It’s important to me that people get to know the movement’s diverse activities”, he says. “Alongside security, I also promote housing benefits for reservists, the business community, the senior officers community, managing and increasing the movement’s membership, and the IDSF women’s forum, with the goal of placing women more at the forefront.”

How can non-professional voices in the public contribute to the security discourse in the movement?

“Even in the security discourse, there are many elements that are not necessarily military. Amir Avivi often says that it is impossible to compromise on security – but there are dozens of diplomatic ways that may offer solutions that address the issue of security: in education, the economy, settlement, etc. Security is not just about tanks and planes, but also benefits for reservists, agriculture, community, and history. The movement is not only concerned with war and the army, but also with the question of how to remain strong and with an independent National Security Doctrine without compromising our Zionism. In these areas, I believe that ideas from the public can and should be used, and I hope that this trend continues”.