By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a heated exchange, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir urged cabinet ministers to finalize a hostage-ceasefire deal rather than proceed with an expanded military operation in Gaza, questioning the negotiating team’s efforts. Ministers, however, countered by criticizing Zamir’s past advice and assessments. Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer pointed to a past instance where Zamir’s predictions were proven incorrect, while Zamir reiterated his concerns about the operation’s human cost and impact on international relations. The meeting also saw Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu address leaks to the media regarding disagreements about the Gaza City operation.
Read the original article here
IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir’s reported outburst within the cabinet room, urging ministers to embrace a hostage-ceasefire deal rather than escalating military operations in Gaza, is a flashpoint, reflecting deep-seated tensions and strategic disagreements. The very act of “yelling” – as described in the accounts – underscores the gravity of the situation and the intensity of Zamir’s conviction. He sees a potentially disastrous path forward, and his opposition is not to be taken lightly.
This is not just a matter of military strategy, but also of weighing the immeasurable value of human lives against the goals of a ground invasion. For Zamir, it seems the protection of Israeli soldiers is paramount. This perspective is understandable, especially given the horrors of urban combat, where defenders often hold the advantage, leading to prolonged and costly engagements.
The reports also point to a larger concern: the absence of a clear “day after” plan for Gaza. If an expanded military operation succeeds in dismantling Hamas’s infrastructure, what then? Will the IDF be tasked with an indefinite occupation, straining resources and potentially inflaming the situation? Is there a viable plan for an alternative Palestinian government? Zamir’s worries are not solely about the immediate military campaign; they stem from the long-term consequences, the lack of a clear exit strategy.
The political landscape in Israel adds another layer of complexity. The military’s relationship with the Netanyahu government has been strained, with some feeling the government is prolonging the conflict. Some believe Prime Minister Netanyahu is doing this to stay in power, not for the actual objectives. These internal conflicts are amplified during times of war, with the military potentially fearing being used to further political ends rather than solely for national security.
Another thing to consider is, what does the deal consist of? If the terms don’t include the disarmament of Hamas, it may simply repeat mistakes of the past. This suggests that while a deal is favorable, the details are crucial, and some deals might not be worth the cost.
The question of political power is also relevant here. Some question why Netanyahu remains in power, and some are skeptical of any moves he makes given the political landscape. Regardless of opinion, it’s not a matter of “should” the military get involved with politics, it’s the reality. In a democracy, civilian governments ultimately make the decisions, but the military provides crucial advice and insights. The military doesn’t get to veto. This is the reality of a conscription based army.
The military, after the initial objectives are met, might think that negotiations are the best route for ending the conflict, which could be a source of friction with a government that has a different perspective on the ideal path forward. This difference in opinion could be a huge motivator in Zamir’s urgency to the cabinet ministers.
Furthermore, the discussion also brings up the complex nature of urban combat and how, if anything, it’s the defenders who hold the advantage. Going into an urban environment, the IDF would likely face a slog of a fight, taking away a lot of soldiers, and at the end of it, it’s hard to say if it’s the correct move.
The suggestion that the military seize power, while provocative, is likely not a viable solution, and not just because it’s a democracy. Even in times of great unrest, the military doesn’t get to veto the civilian government. A coup is never the answer. This underscores the complexities and tensions within Israeli society, where differing opinions and power struggles are often at play.