The security cabinet unanimously approved a plan Sunday night to significantly widen the military campaign in Gaza – one that will demand additional sacrifices from the public.
The IDF has already begun sending out emergency call-up orders – tzavei 8 –to tens of thousands of reservists, many who have already completed 250 days or more of reserve duty since October 7. For these soldiers and their families, the burden is real, mounting, and increasingly difficult to bear.
The approved plan, drawn up by Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir, marks a turning point in the 19-month-old war and signals a shift in tactics and philosophy.
Under Zamir’s predecessor, Herzi Halevi, the army’s approach was to take control of specific areas in Gaza, destroy the Hamas infrastructure there, and then withdraw. Zamir’s strategy is different: return to those areas – but this time, remain to prevent Hamas from returning and reconstituting itself there.
Government officials are now speaking openly about a “conquest of Gaza,” believing this is the way to dismantle Hamas’s military and civilian capabilities and secure the hostages’ release. The underlying assumption is that if Hamas is made to realize its rule is collapsing and territory is being permanently lost, it will be more inclined to free hostages.
Will it work? No one can say with certainty.
What is clear, however, is that the previous approach – while effective in degrading Hamas’s military capabilities – failed to dislodge its civilian rule or bring about the release of the captives. The government and chief-of-staff are now betting that a more aggressive and sustained strategy may accomplish what the previous phase of the war did not.
If the government once again asks the public to brace for a prolonged and intense campaign, it owes it a clear explanation of intent. This is particularly critical given the frustration many reservists feel, believing their earlier sacrifices – going into enemy territory at great personal risk, only to withdraw and return again and again – have been undermined by indecision, inconsistency, and a lack of strategic clarity.
This time, the government cannot count on the same automatic legitimacy it enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of October 7. Back then, hundreds of thousands of reservists reported for duty, many without even being called, because the cause was clear: Israel was fighting a war of survival, barbarically thrust upon it.
Nineteen months later, the landscape has changed. A significant segment of the population, whose voices are heard loudly at protests and amplified by a largely sympathetic media, now questions the wisdom of continued fighting. For them, the war’s central goal should be freeing the hostages, and they argue that intensifying the military campaign may not advance that goal but actually undermine it.
This is no longer a black-and-white moment. The Israeli clarity of October 8 has given way to complexity and doubt. In such an environment, it is not enough for the government to announce an expanded military operation and expect unquestioning support, especially when polls show this government does not enjoy broad public backing.
There may well be sound reasons behind the security cabinet’s decision. The government may indeed have a solid plan for how to proceed in Gaza and what should follow. The push to intensify fighting and to conquer and hold territory appears driven by a sober recognition that as long as Hamas remains intact, no sustainable future can take root in Gaza, and that no one but Israel will do the work of removing them.
But this rationale must be communicated. Not everyone will be persuaded, but the government must lay out the logic behind its move.
Otherwise, opponents may succeed in painting this campaign as a “messianic” quest for territorial expansion when, in fact, its stated purpose is to defeat Hamas. If the goal is to remove Hamas and then ultimately withdraw when someone or something else that Israel can live with takes its place, then that needs to be made clear.
The government is asking much of its citizens. In return, the public deserves to understand the mission, not the operational details that must remain classified, but the broad outlines. What is the vision? What is the intended outcome?
It is far easier to rally people when they know what they are being asked to fight for. That “for” must now be clearly articulated.
!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;
n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,’script’,
‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);
fbq(‘init’, ‘1730128020581377’);
fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);
