The al-Mawasi camp for displaced Palestinians near Khan Younis, Gaza Strip, on September 17. As Israel expands its war in Gaza, decision-making has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of one person: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Photo / Saher Alghorra, The New York Times
Israel’s advance on Gaza City is not only dividing the Israeli public but also showcasing extraordinary discord between the military leadership and the elected government at a time of crisis.
Top military and security officials have been at odds with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over three critical policies: taking over Gaza City, the enclave’s main urban centre; striking at senior Hamas officials in Qatar; and his approach to negotiations on ending the war.
Netanyahu’s hardline stance on all three issues has not only deepened his isolation internationally but has also sharpened questions at home about where he is taking Israel.
His actions have shaken Israel’s strategic relations with Arab states - even as United States President Donald Trump wants to see those expand - and have prompted condemnation and sanctions from some traditional allies.
“We are in a unique and unprecedented era in the sense that decision-making on core issues of national security is essentially concentrated in the hands of one person,” said Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute, a non-partisan research group based in Jerusalem.
“The norm was that big decisions were taken in consensus between the top political and top military-security leadership,” added Plesner, a former centrist lawmaker.
“So this norm has been violated — the chief of staff has been forced to take his soldiers into a battle that he doesn’t necessarily believe in.”
The military chief of staff, Lieutenant-General Eyal Zamir, pushed back in recent weeks against the Government’s decision on Gaza City, which Israel’s leaders describe as one of Hamas’ last strongholds.
Over his resistance, Israel launched its ground invasion of the city this week, even with hundreds of thousands of Palestinians still living there.
Zamir was concerned about the exhaustion of reserve soldiers after nearly two years of war in the Gaza Strip, security officials said.
He also warned that the military could end up with sole responsibility for governing the Gaza Strip’s two million Palestinians, the officials said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
There are also concerns that the assault on Gaza City could endanger the lives of hostages held there.
Netanyahu appointed Zamir to his role just months ago and at the time praised him effusively for his “aggressive approach”.
But the Prime Minister has now launched risky operations in both Gaza and in Qatar against the recommendations of some of his top-ranking military and security chiefs.
Zamir and David Barnea, the chief of Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, opposed the timing of the strike in Qatar, a country that has been mediating negotiations for a ceasefire in Gaza and a close US ally.
They preferred instead to let negotiations for a possible ceasefire run their course, according to three people familiar with the internal deliberations who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Netanyahu recently changed his stance in the truce negotiations.
He had been insisting on a phased, gradual approach to resolving the conflict, starting with a temporary truce and the release of some hostages.
Now he has moved to demanding a comprehensive deal to free all the remaining hostages at once and end the war on terms set by Israel.
Such an agreement would be much more elusive, and Hamas has steadfastly rejected the terms so far.
That sudden shift, too, was opposed by Zamir and Barnea, as well as by Tzachi Hanegbi, Netanyahu’s national security adviser, according to officials who said that the three chiefs had wanted a return to the phased deal that had been on the table and that Hamas had largely accepted.
In Israel’s democratic system, by law, military and security chiefs must ultimately comply with government decisions or resign. Zamir has chosen to stay on so far.
Zamir said in a televised address on Wednesday that the objective of the Gaza City offensive was a decisive defeat of Hamas.
At the same time, he said he wanted to emphasise that bringing back the hostages was a war goal and “a national and moral obligation”.
Idit Shafran Gittleman, an expert on military-civil relations who works at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies, said that Zamir’s reservations about the Gaza City operation were clear.
And while the politicians and generals can and often do disagree, she said, this time the arguments seemed to be less about tactics or strategy and more about a moral clash between those who prioritise defeating Hamas and those who want to put the hostages first.
With thousands of soldiers being sent into battle, “it’s difficult to exaggerate how grave the situation is”, she added.
Many Israelis say they doubt that the Government’s stated goal of eliminating Hamas is attainable and wonder what the operation in Gaza City can achieve that nearly two years of fighting have failed to accomplish.
Polls suggest that a majority would prefer a negotiated deal that would secure the release of the remaining hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners and an end to the war.
Critics of Netanyahu say that he has prolonged the war to keep himself in power by mollifying the far-right members of his governing coalition.
Drawing out the conflict has also staved off a public reckoning over the government and intelligence failures ahead of the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, that set off the war.
The US vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all hostages held by Hamas and other groups, and the lifting of Israeli restrictions on the entry of aid into Gaza.
It was the only country to vote against the resolution, which also calls for the “immediate reversal” of Israel’s expanded military campaign. The 14 other members voted in favour.
Addressing the Security Council ahead of the vote, Morgan Ortagus, a counsellor for the US mission to the UN, said the resolution was “unacceptable”, adding that it would leave “Hamas in a position to carry out future October 7 attacks”.
While more than 350,000 people had fled Gaza City as of Wednesday, according to the Israeli military, roughly half a million are believed to still be in the city under bombardment.
Plesner and other experts said that Netanyahu’s far-right government lacked the constraints that have shaped Israeli decision-making for decades, such as the principle of consensus.
In the past, the defence minister has also generally been a figure with political clout who would exercise personal judgment and have effective veto power over contentious missions.
Defence Minister Israel Katz was appointed by Netanyahu last year after his predecessor, Yoav Gallant, was fired because of disagreements.
Katz is seen as a Netanyahu loyalist and has repeatedly threatened to unleash “hell” on Hamas if the Palestinian militant group does not release the hostages and surrender.
Netanyahu faces little opposition from his coalition partners, who are mostly more hardline than him, or from within his own party.
And given the strong backing of the Trump Administration, other international players appear to have little leverage over his actions.
Netanyahu has been accused of war crimes, including starving Gaza, by the International Criminal Court in The Hague and of presiding over a genocide.
The Israeli Government vehemently rejects the charges, and they appear to have made Netanyahu only more insular and defiant.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Written by: Isabel Kershner
Photographs by: Saher Alghorra, Eric Lee
©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES