Did Israeli leaders undermine military in Gaza? A rift becomes public.

A somber procession of uniformed soldiers carried the casket of the young paratrooper captain, Roy Beit Yaakov, to his final resting place in Jerusalem’s Mount Herzl military cemetery, as a rabbi read out the prayers for the dead.

The officer, along with four other soldiers, was killed May 15 in a friendly-fire incident while fighting in the northern Gaza Strip, emphasizing once again the steep cost Israeli families are paying for the war against Hamas.

What was especially jarring – to the Israeli public and to Israel Defense Forces commanders – was that these soldiers died in an area that had already been largely cleared of Hamas operatives after months of fierce fighting in the north and center of the strip.

But as the IDF has turned its focus to the south, most recently Rafah, billed as Hamas’ last major stronghold, fighters from the militant group have resurfaced in areas from which the army has withdrawn. This is forcing Israeli generals to send soldiers back into these zones for a second and third time, accentuating frustration over the growing number of military deaths and raising questions about the effectiveness of what critics say is an incomplete strategy.

Two key members of Israel’s war Cabinet, both retired generals, have now vented these frustrations in public in a direct challenge to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israel’s prosecution of the war, in which more than 35,000 Palestinians have been killed, is coming under intensified international scrutiny. On Monday, the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor said he was seeking arrest warrants against leaders of both Hamas and Israel.

But the dramatic showdown in Israel is laying bare what analysts say is a growing internal rift – not only among politicians but also between military leaders and the hard-right government – over the lack of a political vision for what should happen after the war.   

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, a member of Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud party, was the first to speak out. Because Mr. Netanyahu is refusing even to discuss a postwar vision, let alone set one out, he said Wednesday, the default will be either continued Hamas rule in Gaza or a de facto Israeli reoccupation of the enclave, with military and civilian governance. That, Mr. Gallant said, would deplete Israel’s military and economic resources and divert its attention from more pressing hostile arenas.

Then, on Saturday night, war Cabinet minister Benny Gantz, a former military chief of staff, called on Mr. Netanyahu to commit to a six-point day-after plan by June 8, or his centrist party would quit the emergency government.

Both Mr. Gallant and Mr. Gantz implied that the prime minister’s war decisions were weighed by personal political survival, and not by national security considerations.

Voicing military’s concerns

The army thinks Israeli politicians have “undermined the military effort and squandered military achievements,” says Professor Chuck Freilich, a senior researcher at The Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University.

With his address, Defense Minister Gallant “was expressing his own frustration and the IDF’s frustration,” Professor Freilich says.

Mr. Gallant said that back in October, when the defense establishment presented the Cabinet with its war plan, it stated “that it will be necessary to destroy Hamas battalions, while simultaneously working to establish a local, non-hostile Palestinian governing alternative.”

“Since October, I have been raising this issue consistently in the Cabinet and have received no response,” he said.

In his own comments, Mr. Gantz criticized the direction that “a small minority” of far-right ministers to whom Mr. Netanyahu is politically beholden were taking the country. “Crucial decisions were not made,” he said. “The acts of leadership needed to guarantee victory were not made.”

In the resulting political storm, the far-right ministers clamored for Mr. Gallant’s dismissal and Mr. Netanyahu reacted with disdain, with his office saying Mr. Gantz’s demands would mean “an end to the war and defeat for Israel.”

The prime minister opposes “bringing the Palestinian Authority into Gaza, and establishing a Palestinian state that will inevitably be a terror state,” his office said.

Yet some Israeli analysts, echoing persistent urgings from Biden administration officials that date to the beginning of the war, defended the rebel ministers’ premise: When nations are at war, setting out a political endgame for the army to work within is a key step toward attaining long-term aims.

“You never use only military power to achieve a national goal,” says Amos Yadlin, a former Israeli air force general and a former head of military intelligence. “The military cannot operate without political objectives.”

Netanyahu’s political interests

Professor Freilich, the researcher at The Institute for National Security Studies, says Mr. Netanyahu is shirking from setting out a day-after strategy “because it doesn’t serve his political interest.” Setting out such a plan means “being realistic, agreeing to some compromises on the Palestinian issue, which [Mr. Netanyahu] isn’t willing to do.”

The worry within the IDF is that Mr. Netanyahu is “perpetuating the war for his own political reasons, not for purely military reasons,” Professor Freilich says.

Friction between the military establishment and this Netanyahu government dates back before the war to an attempted overhaul of the Israeli judiciary. Critics said the legislative initiative, seen as an attempt to grant Mr. Netanyahu effective immunity from corruption charges that could land him in prison, would weaken the country’s democratic checks and balances.

Hundreds of thousands joined in a massive protest movement, including army reservists and air force pilots who threatened to refuse duty if the government initiative persisted. Then, too, Mr. Gallant stood up to Mr. Netanyahu on behalf of military commanders concerned that the legislation was endangering state security. He was fired, and then reinstated after a general strike brought the country to a standstill.

There is still strong public support for the war, and the current rift is not yet as bitter, says Professor Freilich. But, he cautions, “it could pick up. It could lead to a real crisis of confidence between the senior military leadership and the political echelon,” especially if losses mount.

From the start of ground operations in Gaza Oct. 27 through May 19, a total of 282 Israeli soldiers have been killed in combat, and 1,745 wounded, according to government data.

U.S. still pushing

Meanwhile, the United States is still making its case to Mr. Netanyahu. After visiting Saudi Arabia, where meetings focused on a “comprehensive vision” for the Middle East, U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan met Sunday with the prime minister and reiterated the need “for Israel to connect its military operations to a political strategy,” according to a White House readout.

Yet, say some Netanyahu supporters, the prime minister is less than receptive now to Biden administration appeals and is biding his time until U.S. elections in November.

Amir Avivi, a reservist brigadier general, is chairman and founder of a group of retired Israeli security forces that champions sovereignty over the West Bank and Jordan Valley. He says he has met nine times with Mr. Netanyahu since the start of the war.

Mr. Netanyahu’s view, Brig. Gen. Avivi says, is that Israel should take full military and civilian control of the Gaza Strip for a transitional period, during which time the strip will be de-radicalized and a new leadership formed.

“The prime minister knows that what’s good for Israel is not aligned with what this [U.S.] administration wants. So he doesn’t want to have this discussion now,” he says, adding, “Who knows who will [run] the next administration?”