The Diplomatic-Security Cabinet’s decision to conquer Gaza City represents a potential Archimedean point, though its ultimate destination remains uncertain. While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Cabinet ministers pursue Hamas’ defeat, mounting evidence suggests this decision may instead make Israel buckle.
Weekend developments provided two crucial indicators of this dangerous trajectory. Germany – among Israel’s most steadfast European allies – implemented an arms embargo targeting weapons potentially used by the IDF in Gaza operations. Though practically limited since Israel primarily purchases submarines from Germany, the decision’s symbolic weight carries far greater implications, potentially triggering broader international sanctions.
Despite widespread assumptions that Israel operates solely with American weaponry, the defense establishment maintains critical dependencies on numerous countries for strategic system components. These supply chains now face vulnerability, potentially compromising Israel’s offensive and defensive capabilities.
Parallel diplomatic developments emerged from Ibiza, Spain, where American mediator Steve Witkoff met with Qatari Prime Minister Tamim Hamad Al-Thani. Sources indicate their discussions centered on comprehensive hostage release agreements coupled with war termination, scheduled for presentation within two weeks. Absent elaborate deception by Benjamin Netanyahu to avoid military escalation, Israel confronts potential demands from President Donald Trump for immediate conflict resolution.
Escalating international pressure will culminate next month in anticipated Palestinian state recognition by major global powers, generating demands to impose unfavorable war termination terms on Israel.
Explosions send smoke and debris into the air in Gaza, as seen from the Israeli side of the border, July 17, 2025; Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Reuters/Amir Cohen; Yair Sagi)
Defense establishment and diplomatic apparatus leadership issued strategic danger warnings in recent days regarding these developments. Netanyahu and his ministers apparently disregarded these assessments, paralleling their dismissal of concerns about hostage and military casualties. They remained equally unmoved by presented evidence of regular and reserve manpower depletion, demanding IDF compliance comparable to police obedience. This represented one of several remarkable statements from that meeting, including criticism of Hostages and Missing Persons Coordinator Gal Hirsch for insisting hostage return remain a primary war objective.
Perpetual warfare trajectory
This mission survived among five Cabinet-established principles, ranking second to Hamas weapons dismantlement. Subsequent objectives include Strip demilitarization, comprehensive Israeli security control, and alternative civilian governance excluding Hamas or Palestinian Authority involvement. These parameters provide government sufficient flexibility to sustain indefinite Gaza warfare under the pretext of eliminating every weapon and terrorist. They risk establishing Israeli military governance absent viable alternative management structures.
Established principles notably exclude “conquest,” “expulsion,” and “humanitarian city” terminology recently prevalent among government ministers. Whether these omissions reflect senior legal counsel warnings about Israel’s trajectory toward crimes against humanity and genocide accusations, or American pressure influence, remains unclear. Defense establishment leadership apparently exercised minimal decision influence despite unanimous opposition – receiving unprecedented support from National Security Council head Tzachi Hanegbi, who unusually deviated from Netanyahu’s support network.
Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu and Religious Zionist Party Bezalel Smotrich at the Knesset inauguration (Oren Ben Hakoon)
Defense establishment reservations apparently concern Netanyahu less than right-wing ministerial criticism threatening government stability. Reports indicate his direct confrontation with IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir during the meeting, following Zamir’s assessment that Netanyahu’s ultimately-adopted plan risked becoming a “death trap.” Zamir’s evaluation proves accurate – this threatens to trap not only hostages, numerous fighters, and Palestinian civilians, but potentially the State of Israel itself. Netanyahu maintains characteristic confidence in his escape capabilities, though he may discover he lacks Houdini’s abilities while Israel operates beyond circus performance parameters despite similar management approaches.
Historical precedent lessons
Defense establishment seniors highlighted accumulated historical experience including American operations in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, Russian campaigns in Afghanistan and Ukraine, plus IDF involvement in southern Lebanon. No nation successfully accomplished current Cabinet objectives, particularly following two years of military attrition, public division, and unprecedented global legitimacy deterioration.
Defense Minister Yisrael Katz, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and IDF Chief Eyal Zamir (Ariel Hermoni / Defense Ministry)
Zamir’s clear operational reservations enable significant delay capabilities. Military planning requires several weeks, followed by additional weeks for Gaza City population relocation (approximately one million civilians) and reserve force mobilization requiring renewed deployment during holiday periods, contradicting service duration reduction promises. Ultra-Orthodox draft evasion enforcement represents another lever available to Zamir and IDF Manpower Directorate head Maj. Gen. Dado Bar Kalifa for political system disruption.
Extended timeframes and multiple challenges ahead – combined with anticipated international pressure – create numerous course correction opportunities, as right-wing ministers suspect Netanyahu intends. Partial agreement options may resurface, though Israel appears to have maneuvered into all-or-nothing positioning. Without Netanyahu’s strategic recalibration and responsiveness to domestic and international Israel advocates (rather than interest groups and associates with wartime Qatar connections), he risks leading Israel toward ultimately being left with nothing.
