In striking developments that underscore both ideological fissures and public unease, the plan approved by the security cabinet early Friday morning – after a lengthy overnight session – to launch an offensive to take over Gaza City is being criticized by those who feel it goes too far and by those who feel it doesn’t go far enough.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has broken ranks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by saying the plan is a half-hearted effort meant only to pressure Hamas to negotiate a ceasefire.
“A war should be fought to win, to the end, even if it carries heavy costs,” he said. “But a partial move meant only to push Hamas back into the negotiating room in national humiliation and capitulation to terrorism – absolutely not.”
On the other hand, National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi said the plan would place the remaining hostages in even greater peril than they’re already in.
“I don’t understand how someone who has watched the videos of Evyatar and Rom, and all those released before them, can support the statement ‘all or nothing,’” N12 news site quoted him as saying. “That means giving up the chance to rescue at least 10 hostages immediately. I fully agree with the chief of staff that taking control of Gaza City jeopardizes the lives of the hostages, which is why I oppose the prime minister’s proposal.”
This intra-coalition dissent signals more than just tactical disagreement; it highlights a deepening national anxiety about the direction and legitimacy of Israel’s Gaza policy.
Israel's Gaza policy: The subject of deepening national anxiety
These disagreements expose a tension at the heart of Netanyahu’s coalition: While the prime minister seeks flexibility to negotiate, secure hostages, and appease international critics, his far-right partners demand uncompromising total military control down to the erasure of a ceasefire even in exchange for hostage deals.
But Smotrich’s dissent also resonates with a broader unease across Israeli society – not just within far-right circles.
The plan to occupy Gaza City – over a prolonged campaign that would mean no movement on the hostage front – has sparked increased protests. On Sunday, hostage families launched a campaign for a general strike in opposition to the plan, which they warn would mark a death knell for the hostages.
Smotrich’s opposition, rooted in ideological absolutism, may initially seem to be a declamatory gesture of right-wing zeal. But ironically, by rejecting Netanyahu’s plan as too weak, he underscores its core fragility: It neither offers the finality demanded by the coalition’s hard-liners nor the legitimacy required to heal Israeli society and withstand international scrutiny.
In effect, this break illuminates a political impasse: Netanyahu’s strategy – seeking a calibrated escalation that secures hostages, maintains legitimacy, and preserves coalition unity – is unraveling. Smotrich’s public disavowal reveals that even within the governing camp, there is no consensus that the plan has a clear mandate.
The plan’s ambiguity – too harsh for some, too cautious for others – reflects and magnifies a broader national disquiet, where neither the political elite nor the public at large see it as a viable reflection of Israel’s will.
Israel today stands at a crossroads: a war-weariness gripping the streets, protests filled with families of captives, and mounting alarm over Gaza’s human toll.
Smotrich’s dissent thus does more than challenge Netanyahu; it signals a crisis of coherence. Without a strategy that can unite rather than fracture, Israel risks deepening internal divisions even as it confronts external dangers.
Netanyahu’s Gaza plan has become a political mirror, reflecting back the fractures of Israeli society. Smotrich’s dissent is not an isolated act of ideological defiance, but rather part of a wider sense – across the political spectrum – that the strategy lacks both clarity and national consensus.
To the far Right, it is half measures; to others, it is reckless overreach; to many more, it is a distraction from the urgent priority of rescuing the hostages and ending a war without end.
This is why the plan struggles to command legitimacy: It satisfies no camp fully, while deepening mistrust between leaders and citizens. Without a course of action that can reconcile security aims with moral and political coherence, Israel risks prolonging a war that is losing the country’s heart.
Ultimately, Smotrich’s dissent is a symptom of something larger: a nation divided over strategy, purpose, and moral direction. Without a unifying vision that addresses both security and conscience, Netanyahu’s Gaza plan risks becoming not a path forward, but rather a fault line deepening Israel’s internal and external crises.