With international attention focused on Netanyahu’s visit to the US, the coming days are likely to clarify the broader direction of Israel’s strategy.
By Shimon Sherman, JNS
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits Washington, the Israeli leadership is entering a critical phase in shaping the outcome of the Gaza war. And as the diplomatic track unfolds abroad, a parallel process is taking shape in Jerusalem, where IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir has presented the Israeli war cabinet with three distinct proposals for the continued campaign in Gaza.
The options, ranging from continued raids to full military conquest, have reignited longstanding tensions between the military command and political leadership over the war’s endgame. With international attention focused on Netanyahu’s visit to the United States and U.S. President Donald Trump once again playing a central role in the regional agenda, the coming days are likely to clarify the broader direction of Israel’s strategy in Gaza.
One of the options presented by Zamir is the continuation of targeted raids across Gaza without establishing permanent military control. Known as the “General’s Plan,” this strategy relies on repeatedly entering hostile neighborhoods to dismantle Hamas cells, withdraw and return as needed.
It has formed the backbone of Israel’s operational doctrine since the ground invasion began. Neighborhoods such as Shejaiya, Zeitoun and Jabalia have been reentered up to 10 times, often after Hamas fighters reestablished defensive positions.
While supporters argue the model preserves flexibility and minimizes Israel’s footprint, the cost has been considerable. Just this week, five IDF soldiers were killed by an IED ambush in Beit Hanoun, an area that had already been conquered several times.
Military leaders have defended the approach. Former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant articulated the strategy in a press conference last year, saying, “The enemy will try to regenerate itself in places we’ve already cleared. That’s why we will keep going back until there is nothing left of Hamas’s control.”
Some experts view the approach as a tactical loop with no strategic ceiling. Lt.-Col. (res.) Maurice Hirsch, former director of the Military Prosecution for Judea and Samaria, and Senior researcher at the Israel Defense and Security Forum (IDSF), argued that the repeated raids amount to “a game of whack-a-mole,” lacking the long-term control necessary to defeat a terror entity embedded in civilian infrastructure.
“The idea of carrying out these raids in the neighborhood of Gaza has been criticized from wall to wall. That’s not how you fight a war, and this is not how you defeat terrorism,” he told JNS.
Martin Sherman, founder and CEO of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies and Senior Researcher at IDSF, agreed with this assessment. “The raiding option isn’t even intended to bring the fighting to an end; it’s just intended to manage it,” he told JNS. “October 7 proves spectacularly that mowing the grass is not a feasible strategy. You have to uproot the weeds.”
The second option and the one currently attracting the most international momentum is a phased ceasefire deal tied to the return of Israeli hostages. Negotiations mediated by the U.S., Qatar and Egypt are reportedly converging around a 60-day truce that would include Hamas releasing around 10 living hostages and the remains of 18 others.
In exchange, Israel would begin a gradual military pullback from selected areas of Gaza, while allowing expanded humanitarian aid deliveries. The proposal under discussion would unfold in carefully staged phases, with hostage releases and Israeli withdrawals moving in tandem. Despite gaps over the scope of the withdrawal and mechanisms for aid coordination, Israeli officials have signaled cautious optimism that a deal may soon materialize.
Trump has forcefully backed the emerging framework, posting on Truth Social, “MAKE THE DEAL IN GAZA. GET THE HOSTAGES BACK!!!” In a follow-up post, he wrote: “My Representatives had a long and productive meeting with the Israelis today on Gaza. Israel has agreed to the necessary conditions to finalize the 60-Day CEASEFIRE… I hope, for the good of the Middle East, that Hamas takes this Deal, because it will not get better—IT WILL ONLY GET WORSE.”
Inside Israel, however, the proposal has drawn sharp criticism from key voices in the security establishment. Colonel (res.) Gabi Siboni, CEO of the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security (JISS), warned that the deal “will weaken our military position and force us to delay critical operations to remove the Hamas strongholds in North Gaza,” calling it “a catastrophic” plan from a military standpoint and “not a coherent strategy but just a delay mechanism.”
Hirsch offered a similar assessment, stating, “We’ve cornered ourselves into a reality where we believe that the only way to get hostages out is to trade them for terrorists and let the terrorists set their demands.”
Sherman echoed these concerns. “The issue with the hostages is a heart-wrenching situation,” he said, “but running a country is a strategic exercise, not a humanitarian exercise, and we can’t mortgage our future and the success of this war for the sake of what in the end comes down to a clear appeal to emotion over reason.”
While he supported securing the hostages’ release “by all means,” he insisted that “those means should be coercive and not consensual.”
The central issue surrounding a potential ceasefire deal is the incremental release of hostages. Experts agree that there is no chance that Hamas will release all the hostages in a ceasefire deal, which automatically means that, on a strategic level, a hostage deal will not lead to increased operational freedom for the IDF once the ceasefire is over.
“Hamas will never release all the hostages. They are their insurance policy; they are the guarantee that they will survive. Anyone who says that a deal to release all the hostages is possible is suffering from self-delusion. Any kind of serious plan for the return of all the hostages cannot include a deal with Hamas,” Hirch explained.
Sherman expanded on this point, saying, “This sort of strategy will likely result in fewer hostages leaving Gaza. The fact that Israel is so demonstratively showing that the hostages are a very significant pressure point for it increases the value of the hostages for Hamas and reduces the chance of their being released.”
The most assertive path under discussion calls for a full-scale military conquest of the Gaza Strip via a comprehensive operation designed to eradicate Hamas’s military and governing infrastructure and place the territory under Israeli control.
Building on gains from “Operation Gideon’s Chariots,” which has secured over 75% of Gaza, this plan envisions the IDF expanding its footprint into remaining strongholds such as Gaza City and the central camps. Proponents argue that without full territorial control, Hamas can reconstitute itself and continue attacks, undermining both security and hostage safety.
Defense Minister Israel Katz has been a staunch advocate, declaring on July 5 that “the only path to decisive victory and the secure return of our hostages is the full conquest of the Gaza Strip, a complete halt to so‑called ‘humanitarian aid.’” However, Katz has also cautioned that advancing before minimizing threats might backfire, warning that moving into uncontrolled areas too quickly “would unnecessarily endanger hostages and troops.”
Hirsch said that in his view, an operation to uproot Hamas is critical. “Any solution that doesn’t end with the complete obliteration of Hamas and that allows them to regroup and to regain control in Gaza is a bad solution for Israel,” he explained.
Hirch further added that conquest must be paired with an ideological reset, as a prerequisite for long-term stability. “Just the conquest of the Gaza Strip is not a sufficient solution in and of itself,” he contended. “It requires the de‑radicalization of the population that remains and allowing Gazans to leave the strip so that rebuilding efforts can take place.”
He said that the scope of the de-radicalization program should not be excessively broad. “We don’t need them to be Zionist, we just need to teach them that it’s not okay to murder Jews,” he said.
The most transformative of the postwar strategies under discussion is a population-relocation initiative first proposed by Trump in February. Under this plan, the United States would lead a coordinated international effort to facilitate the voluntary emigration of up to two million residents from Gaza to third countries, accompanied by a full-scale redevelopment of the strip once emptied of hostile elements.
The proposal has gained traction inside Israel’s senior leadership, with both Netanyahu and Katz offering public support. In a statement earlier this year, Katz revealed that the plan “includes extensive assistance that will allow any Gaza resident who wants to emigrate to a third state to receive support that includes special departure arrangements through the sea, air, and land, among other things.”
Netanyahu reiterated his backing for the idea during his recent meeting with Trump in Washington, prompting a senior Israeli official to confirm that “the White House is serious” about moving the plan forward. Katz, for his part, praised what he called “President Trump’s bold plan,” arguing that “Gaza residents should be allowed the freedom to leave and emigrate, as is the norm around the world.”
Israeli media have reported that the Defense Ministry was instructed to begin exploring mechanisms for implementing a “voluntary departure” program in cooperation with international partners.
For supporters of the initiative, the logic is both moral and strategic. Siboni argued that “once Trump had opened the discussion about moving Gaza to other places, this is the only thing Israel should be focusing on.”
Sherman said that in his view, “the only viable solution for Gaza is the annexation of the entire strip and the removal of the population to other countries. Anything else is just kicking the can down the road.” Hirsch framed the argument in strong moral language, calling it “the most humanitarian-oriented idea that has been proposed on Gaza,” and noting that “the idea of forcing Gazans to stay in this strip to make some kind of political point, even though the place is completely uninhabitable and massively dangerous to live in, is unbelievable.”
As proposals like Trump’s population transfer plan gain traction among senior political leaders, they have also revealed an undercurrent of resistance within the military establishment, underscoring an enduring tension in Israeli governance.
Senior IDF leadership has long played a visible and often controversial part in shaping policy. The placement of Eyal Zamir as chief of staff earlier this year was initially framed as an attempt to steer the army away from political entanglements and back to its rightful subservience to the political echelon.
However, recent reports have indicated that Zamir is heavily in favor of a ceasefire deal or a continuation of the raiding strategy, leading many to conclude that the military’s institutional activism remains firmly in place. Zamir strongly pushed back against government demands to evacuate all civilians to southern Gaza, besiege Gaza City, and root out the Hamas strongholds there.
“Do you want a military government [in Gaza]? Who will govern two million people?” Zamir was quoted as saying in a recent cabinet meeting.
The emptying and capture of Gaza City are broadly considered a prerequisite for both a full military conquest of Gaza and Trump’s population transfer plan. Siboni warned, “The army shouldn’t have any say regarding the goals of the war. The military should be focusing on military matters, most importantly, the goal of destroying the enemy and forced displacement. The fact that the military is doing anything else is concerning and does not contribute to our security.”
Sherman was also sharply critical of Zamir’s recent policy stance. “The people who should be charting the course for Gaza are the political leadership. The army has demonstrated great technical proficiency, but it’s a failure of political will to involve them like this,” he said.