The Outcomes of "The People, the Army, and the Government" in Israel

The new developments in the ongoing internal Israeli debate regarding the outcome of the war on the Gaza Strip are as follows: First, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is determined to continue the war, claiming that this will lead to the recovery of all Israeli hostages while simultaneously resolving the conflict with Hamas, but without explaining to the broad Israeli public, or even to his political partners, or to the leadership of the security establishment, how he intends to do this. While Netanyahu announces that he will pursue both negotiation and war simultaneously, he is executing the path of war and refraining from advancing the path of negotiation.

Second, close associates of Netanyahu confirm that in his previous determination, he only takes into account what one of them described as the "heat of the White House" in Washington, and as long as he feels that there are supportive winds from President Donald Trump, the war will continue. If he believes that Trump is changing his course, it is likely that Israel will halt its actions.

Third, the reason for Netanyahu's disagreement with the security establishment regarding the continuation of the war, and basically regarding the plan to occupy Gaza that was approved in the Israeli security cabinet (the "cabinet"), according to what several military analysts have revealed, is that the Israeli army lacks the means to guarantee any of the elements of the decisions made by the "cabinet." According to what is conveyed from the army leadership, it cannot guarantee the safety of the hostages or prevent their deaths, nor can it ensure avoiding significant casualties among its ranks during the battle for the city of Gaza. Clearly, it cannot commit to timelines for ending the "cleansing operations" underground in Gaza, and it also cannot guarantee the successful evacuation of one million Palestinian civilians, the majority of whom do not agree to be evacuated. For all these reasons combined, the Chief of Staff and the leadership of the security establishment warn that Israel may find itself embroiled in the war further instead of bringing it to an end.

It was also indicated, in the context of the same analyses, that Netanyahu clashed with the Chief of Staff after the latter stated that Netanyahu's plan could be a "deadly trap." According to some, this trap would not only be lethal for the Israeli hostages, for many soldiers, and for thousands of Palestinians, but it could also be deadly for Israel, turning it into a pariah state. It seems that the background for the obsession with the "deadly trap" lies in the fact that the army has undergone nearly two years of exhausting warfare, while Israeli society is divided over the issue of hostages, and international legitimacy has reached its lowest levels ever.

For documentation purposes regarding the position of the Israeli army leadership, it has been reported from matching reports by Israeli military reporters that this leadership has warned that the occupation of Gaza could lead Israel to find itself managing a military rule and may incur five high costs that it is doubtful it will be able to bear, namely: effectively conceding the hostages, the death of many soldiers, increasing the economic cost, intensifying the long-term burden on the army, with the potential to deplete both reserve and regular forces, and deepening the political and legal deterioration that could result in turning Israel into a pariah state.

A military historian who held a senior position in the Israeli army noted that he relied on Prussian general and war historian Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), who, when addressing the nature of war, emphasized that reaching a decisive point requires the intertwining of three elements: the people, the army, and the government. Such an intertwining was one of the characteristics that distinguished Israel at the beginning of the war on Gaza nearly two years ago, but it did not achieve decisiveness. Achieving decisiveness currently seems doubtful in light of the army's stance on one hand, and the deepening social-political divisions within the population on the other hand, all compounded by the erosion of international legitimacy and Israel's global standing.