As Netanyahu convenes his cabinet to weigh a full Gaza City offensive, nationwide protests, international scrutiny, and IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir’s calls for a partial hostage deal collide in Israel’s most pivotal and deeply divisive wartime debate to date.
Jerusalem — In a tense and decisive gathering, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet convened Wednesday evening to debate whether to escalate military operations into Gaza City, even as protests sweep the nation and the possibility of a partial hostage deal remains on the table.
The meeting follows weeks of mounting public pressure. Tens of thousands of Israelis—many being relatives of hostages—have taken to the streets across Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and other cities, demanding both an end to the war in Gaza and the safe return of their loved ones. Images of frail, malnourished hostages released by Hamas have deepened national anguish, intensifying calls for a ceasefire and negotiated agreement.
This public unrest coincides with fierce internal debate. The security cabinet, dominated by hard-line figures, has green-lit a plan to seize control of Gaza City—a move Prime Minister Netanyahu described as essential to dismantle Hamas, even while insisting Israel does not intend to govern the area long-term.
Yet at the heart of the conflict lies a growing rift between the political leadership and the military brass. Lieutenant-General Eyal Zamir, appointed IDF Chief of Staff earlier this year, has repeatedly voiced caution. In a stormy three-hour meeting with Netanyahu, Zamir warned that expanding military control beyond Gaza City risks trapping Israeli forces amid urban warfare and—critically—endangering the remaining hostages.
Zamir’s opposition is rooted in both operational and humanitarian concerns. He has argued that the military has already achieved sufficient control over three-quarters of the Gaza Strip and that further expansion threatens lives without a corresponding strategic benefit. He has defended his right to voice such views, calling robust debate a long-held tradition of Israel’s military culture. While he acknowledges the authority of the civilian cabinet to set policy, he insists that commanders must speak candidly when they believe a chosen course endangers the mission or the nation.
For Netanyahu, however, the prospect of full-scale occupation represents more than just a military maneuver—it is a political imperative. His coalition is held together by partners such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who has denounced any compromise and demanded decisive action. Smotrich and other far-right leaders warn that a failure to uproot Hamas completely would amount to capitulation and could trigger the collapse of the government. The fragile coalition arithmetic has therefore become a crucial factor in the cabinet’s deliberations.
Amid this unfolding drama, ceasefire negotiators report that Hamas has responded positively to a new partial truce proposal. The plan—backed by Egypt, Qatar, and the United States—would involve a sixty-day pause in fighting and the release of half of the remaining hostages, in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and a gradual Israeli pullback from select areas. For many hostage families, such a deal offers the only realistic hope of seeing their loved ones again. Yet cabinet hardliners remain adamant that only sustained pressure will compel Hamas to release all captives and prevent the terror group’s resurgence.
Importantly, this proposal remains under active consideration, suggesting that elements within the government could still pivot away from a full-scale urban invasion if a deal materializes. The delay in launching the Gaza City offensive—expected to take weeks—may allow time for negotiations to advance. Zamir and other senior officers have urged that these talks not be dismissed out of hand, arguing that partial progress on the hostages would still represent a vital national achievement.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains dire. Airstrikes continue to claim civilian lives, particularly in Gaza City’s eastern suburbs and in Jabalia, areas already devastated by months of fighting. The destruction has fueled both international condemnation and domestic unease. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has warned that an Israeli takeover of Gaza City would constitute a “dangerous escalation,” while European powers have pressed for humanitarian corridors and even imposed restrictions on arms sales. The Biden administration, while reaffirming Israel’s right to self-defense, has quietly urged restraint and warned of the risks of entrapment in prolonged urban combat.
The domestic political stakes for Netanyahu are equally high. The protests, though centered in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, have spread into smaller towns and cities, drawing Israelis from across the political spectrum. Many citizens, while supportive of the war effort in principle, express exhaustion at the toll of nearly a year of fighting and growing anxiety over the lack of a clear endgame. The images of anguished families, coupled with the mounting death toll, have fueled a sense of urgency that even seasoned Israeli leaders admit is unprecedented. Netanyahu, long adept at steering through political crises, now faces perhaps the defining test of his leadership.
For his part, Zamir has made clear that while he will obey cabinet decisions if ordered, he will not cease warning against their risks. His outspokenness has created unusual tension between Israel’s political and military leadership, a relationship traditionally characterized by unity in times of war. Some ministers view Zamir’s candor as insubordination, while others privately concede that his warnings deserve greater weight.
The question of whether a partial deal is truly off the table therefore hangs heavily over the cabinet’s deliberations. To the families of hostages, abandoning such a possibility would amount to abandoning their loved ones. To hardline ministers, pursuing a partial deal represents weakness and risks emboldening Hamas. To Zamir and many within the military, refusing a partial deal risks missing the only realistic opportunity to save lives without further escalation.
As Netanyahu prepares to announce the cabinet’s decision, Israel stands at a crossroads. A green light for a Gaza City offensive would mark a dramatic escalation, with unpredictable consequences for both hostages and civilians. A shift toward a partial deal would inflame his coalition and could trigger political upheaval at home. Either course carries immense risk.
In the streets, voices of anguish and defiance echo through the night. Inside the cabinet chamber, leaders weigh the gravest of choices: whether to press forward with a final military thrust into Gaza, or to seize the chance—however incomplete—to bring some of the hostages home. The outcome, still uncertain, will reverberate far beyond Israel’s borders, shaping the destiny of the conflict, the future of the Netanyahu government, and Israel’s place in a region once again at the edge of conflagration.
This is a difficult and painful time. Are all those hostages worth another Yahya Sinwar, or a dozen of him being released, honestly? Is putting all Israelis at risk of death or captivity, to free them a few days sooner? Should you not focus on this you can save and defend? And trust the Lord, God of Avraham, Yitzhak, and Yakov for the ones you may not be able to reach in time? Is another, worse 7 October worth the risk?