Israel’s senior security officials backed a partial deal and warned that occupying Gaza City would not subdue Hamas

Amos Harel, military analyst for Haaretz

Translated by Mustafa Ibrahim

The smaller political-security cabinet (the “kabinett”) met yesterday (Sunday) to discuss strategy more than tactics. Although the first leaks from the meeting dealt, as expected, with provocations by the messianic-Torah right ministers toward the military, it appears that something significant happened. All the security agencies’ representatives presented a firm position in favor of a partial prisoner-exchange deal. They also warned of the consequences of a military takeover of Gaza City, arguing it would likely exact a heavy price from Israel without subduing Hamas. It was unusual that some Likud ministers also raised questions about the operation’s chances of success.

Behind these developments are two important elements: Hamas’s positive response to the partial prisoner-exchange plan, which arrived two weeks earlier, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence on ignoring that response and soon sending army forces into Gaza. Security officials were surprised that some ministers — including Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, Science and Technology Minister Gila Gamliel, Regional Cooperation Minister David Amsalem and even Justice Minister Yariv Levin — asked tough questions. Amsalem warned the Strip could become “a Vietnam for Israel.” Sa’ar described the deterioration of Israel’s international standing amid the ongoing war and asked why Israel’s position (effectively Netanyahu’s position), which initially supported the deal, had changed and now opposes it after Hamas agreed.

Netanyahu made clear he has U.S. President Donald Trump’s support for an Israeli military operation, saying Trump would back Israel if it moved quickly. The prime minister described the dilemma as a historic test for Israel, saying Israeli deterrence is at stake, and that accepting only a partial deal without subduing Hamas would mean Hamas had “brought Israel to its knees” by abducting its citizens. Netanyahu appeared fully aligned with the rhetoric of the messianic-right ministers.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir demanded a vote against the partial deal, while Netanyahu avoided responding directly. Gamliel warned Ben-Gvir that he might lose in such a vote. Settlement Minister Orit Strock attacked Chief of Staff Ayal Zamir, saying that if he fears the war’s outcome he should resign. Zamir, who seemed less affected than Strock and her allies wanted us to believe, made clear he is not someone who shows blind obedience before the kabinett.

It appears the kabinett has never before carried out an operation of such extremity contrary to the position of senior security officials, even though they announced they would carry out orders if issued. According to assessments by all the security agencies, a wide military operation in Gaza would not lead to the rapid subjugation of Hamas as Netanyahu claims, nor would it force the group to accept his terms for a full deal.

Conversely, it is expected to worsen Israel’s international standing, in the midst of increasing international initiatives to recognize a Palestinian state, and heighten the risk of greater tensions in the West Bank.

Zamir warned the kabinett that a new operation in Gaza could last a full year, and that there are currently no humanitarian arrangements to absorb the Palestinian population that would be pushed south from the city. He also noted that the eventual outcome of the operation would be the establishment of military rule, something the state is not prepared for in any form.

Netanyahu continues to show determination to act despite broad opposition in professional circles and among the public, and to some degree within the kabinett itself. The reasons are fairly clear: he does not want a deal that ends the war and opens the political agenda to scrutiny of his performance since the October 7 massacre and demands to form a national inquiry commission, especially with an election year approaching.

What does Trump want from the Strip?
The Washington Post published an ambitious plan two days ago that the U.S. administration discussed for the “day after” the war. According to the plan, the United States would administer the Strip as a trusteeship for at least ten years, during which the Palestinian population would be “voluntarily relocated” or confined to small enclaves inside it, while Americans turn the area into a tourist resort. After a decade, residents would be allowed to return to “AI-driven smart cities.”

The chances of success for this “Riviera,” according to Trump, are comparable to those of the American-Israeli Gaza humanitarian association delivering food aid to two million Gazans while sidelining Hamas — the same ambitious plan that contributed to the deterioration of the situation in the Strip over recent months.

What Trump and his associates are contemplating is a large-scale ethnic-cleansing step that could trigger a severe crisis in Egypt and even threaten the stability of its regime. In the background stands Israel’s Torah-based religious right, which does not care about vague promises of a future return for Palestinians. They want settlements for Jews and a Gaza Strip empty of Palestinians; tourists matter less to them.