Israel’s military push into Gaza City is causing significant internal strife, not just among the public but also highlighting an unusual level of disagreement between the top brass of the military and the civilian government during this critical time.
Recently, high-ranking military and security figures have openly conflicted with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Their disagreements center on three key areas: the decision to invade Gaza City (the strip’s primary urban hub), the timing of strikes against senior Hamas leaders based in Qatar, and the overall strategy for peace talks to end the ongoing conflict.
Netanyahu’s firm stance on these issues has not only isolated Israel on the global stage but also fueled domestic debate about the nation’s future course. His policies have strained critical relationships with Arab countries, even as there were hopes for expansion, and have led to criticism and penalties from some of Israel’s long-standing international partners.
According to Yohanan Plesner, president of the nonpartisan Israel Democracy Institute in Jerusalem, “We are witnessing an extraordinary and unprecedented period where vital national security decisions are largely controlled by a single individual.”
Plesner, a former centrist legislator, elaborated, “Traditionally, major decisions were made through consensus between political and military-security leaders. This fundamental practice has now been abandoned, forcing the chief of staff to lead troops into a conflict he may not fully endorse.”
Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, the military chief of staff, recently resisted the government’s plan to occupy Gaza City, which Israeli leaders claim is a final Hamas stronghold. Despite his objections, Israel initiated its ground invasion this week, even though hundreds of thousands of Palestinians remain in the city.
Security officials, speaking anonymously due to the sensitive nature of the information, indicated that General Zamir worried about the fatigue of reserve soldiers after almost two years of conflict in Gaza. He also expressed concern that the military might become solely responsible for administering the Gaza Strip’s two million Palestinians.
A major worry is that the assault on Gaza City could put the lives of any remaining hostages at severe risk.
Just a few months prior, Prime Minister Netanyahu had appointed General Zamir, lavishly commending his “aggressive approach.”
However, the Prime Minister has since initiated hazardous operations in both Gaza and Qatar, proceeding despite the reservations of some of his most senior military and security leaders.
Both General Zamir and David Barnea, head of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, disagreed with the timing of the Qatar strike. Qatar has been a key mediator in Gaza ceasefire talks and is a close American ally. Sources close to the internal discussions, who chose to remain anonymous, stated that the two officials believed it was better to allow the ceasefire negotiations to conclude first.
Netanyahu recently altered his position on truce negotiations. Initially advocating for a gradual, phased resolution—beginning with a temporary ceasefire and partial hostage release—he now demands a comprehensive agreement. This new approach seeks the simultaneous release of all remaining hostages and an end to the war on Israel’s terms, a proposal Hamas has consistently rejected as far too difficult to achieve.
This abrupt change was also met with opposition from General Zamir, Mr. Barnea, and Tzachi Hanegbi, Netanyahu’s national security adviser. Anonymous officials involved in the discussions revealed that these three leaders preferred to revert to the previous phased deal, which Hamas had largely agreed upon.
Under Israel’s democratic legal framework, military and security leaders are legally bound to follow government decisions or step down. General Zamir, for his part, has chosen to remain in his position.
In a televised address on Tuesday, General Zamir declared that the Gaza City offensive aimed for a definitive defeat of Hamas. Simultaneously, he underscored that rescuing the hostages was a paramount war objective and a profound “national and moral obligation.”
Idit Shafran Gittleman, a specialist in military-civil relations at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, noted General Zamir’s evident misgivings about the Gaza City operation. She suggested that while disagreements between political and military leaders are common, this instance appears to be a deeper moral conflict, pitting the objective of defeating Hamas against the imperative of prioritizing hostage recovery.
She further stressed the gravity of the situation, stating, “It’s hard to overstate how serious this is,” as thousands of soldiers are deployed to the battlefield.
Many Israelis question the government’s declared aim of eradicating Hamas, expressing skepticism about what this Gaza City operation can possibly achieve after almost two years of unsuccessful efforts.
Public opinion polls indicate that most Israelis favor a negotiated settlement to free the remaining hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners and a cessation of hostilities.
Netanyahu’s detractors contend that he has deliberately extended the conflict to maintain his political position, appeasing the far-right factions within his ruling coalition. This prolonged war has also delayed accountability for the government and intelligence lapses that preceded the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, which initiated the current hostilities.
This military operation in Gaza City is projected to exacerbate an already severe humanitarian catastrophe in the coastal region. Health officials in the enclave report approximately 65,000 Palestinian deaths, a figure that includes both combatants and civilians. In Israel, the October 2023 Hamas-led attack resulted in the deaths of around 1,200 people, as confirmed by Israeli authorities, with an additional 250 taken captive.
While several dozen captives were freed during two short ceasefires, Israel currently estimates that roughly 20 hostages remain alive in Gaza, along with the remains of up to 28 others.
By Tuesday evening, over 350,000 people had evacuated Gaza City, according to the Israeli military. However, an estimated half a million individuals are thought to still be trapped within the city amid ongoing bombardment.
Plesner and other analysts highlighted that Netanyahu’s far-right government operates without the traditional checks that have guided Israeli policymaking for decades, specifically the vital principle of consensus.
Historically, the defense minister was typically an influential political figure, capable of exercising independent judgment and effectively vetoing controversial military operations.
Current Defense Minister Israel Katz, appointed by Netanyahu last year following the dismissal of his predecessor, Yoav Gallant, over policy disagreements, is widely perceived as a loyal supporter. He has consistently warned of unleashing ‘hell’ on Hamas if they fail to release the hostages and surrender.
Netanyahu encounters minimal resistance from his coalition, largely composed of even more hard-line members, and little internal challenge from his own party. With the significant support of the Trump administration, international actors seemingly have limited influence over his policy decisions.
The International Criminal Court in The Hague has accused Netanyahu of war crimes, including the starvation of Gaza, and of overseeing a genocide. The Israeli government vehemently denies these allegations, which seemingly have only made Netanyahu more isolated and unyielding.