Fantasy or Folly? IDF Chief Torpedoes Netanyahu’s Gaza Plan

As Israel’s political leadership pushes for a bold offensive to seize Gaza City, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir has emerged as a vocal skeptic, warning that the plan is a “fantasy” fraught with risks. His dissent, which has sparked public clashes with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and far-right ministers, reflects deep-seated concerns about military overreach, hostage safety, and the long-term costs of occupation. Zamir’s reservations, rooted in strategic and humanitarian calculations, highlight a growing rift between Israel’s military and political echelons as the nearly two-year Gaza war grinds on.

Zamir, a seasoned commander who assumed the role of Chief of Staff in March 2025, has consistently advocated for a more restrained approach to the conflict. His opposition to a full-scale conquest of Gaza City, Hamas’s last major urban stronghold, stems from a trifecta of fears: the endangerment of hostages, the exhaustion of Israeli forces, and the catastrophic humanitarian and diplomatic fallout. These concerns, voiced in heated cabinet meetings and leaked to Israeli media, have placed Zamir at odds with Netanyahu’s vision of total control over the Gaza Strip.

The Hostage Dilemma

At the heart of Zamir’s apprehension is the fate of the remaining hostages, estimated at around 20 living individuals held by Hamas in areas like Gaza City. The IDF has deliberately avoided operations in zones where hostages are believed to be located, fearing that Hamas could execute them if Israeli troops advance. Zamir has warned that a ground assault could lead to the hostages being killed either intentionally by their captors or inadvertently by Israeli forces in the chaos of urban combat. This fear is not hypothetical: Hamas has repeatedly threatened to execute hostages if the IDF closes in, and past operations have failed to secure living captives since June 2024.

Zamir’s preference for a ceasefire deal over military escalation reflects this priority. In closed discussions, he reportedly argued that “efforts must be made to reach a deal,” emphasizing a strategy of encircling Hamas strongholds while pursuing negotiations to secure hostage releases. His push for a 60-day truce and partial hostage exchange, as opposed to Netanyahu’s all-or-nothing approach, underscores his belief that a military takeover could doom the captives.

Zamir’s second major concern is the state of the IDF itself. After nearly two years of multi-front warfare, spanning Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, the Israeli military is stretched thin. Reservists, who would be critical for a Gaza City offensive, are showing signs of exhaustion, with only 60% responding to call-ups and many citing medical or personal exemptions. The planned operation, dubbed “Gideon’s Chariots B,” would require mobilizing 60,000 reservists and deploying four to five divisions for a campaign lasting up to six months. Zamir has cautioned that such a commitment could erode the IDF’s readiness, expose soldiers to improvised explosive devices, and lead to significant casualties in a city where Hamas has reverted to guerrilla tactics.

The IDF’s recent experience in Operation Gideon’s Chariots, launched in May 2025, bolsters Zamir’s caution. Despite initial claims of “conquering Gaza,” the operation failed to defeat Hamas, free hostages, or secure humanitarian aid distribution, leaving the IDF controlling 75% of the Strip but unable to advance further without risking hostages. Zamir’s alternative, encircling Gaza City and conducting targeted raids, aims to minimize losses while maintaining pressure on Hamas, a strategy he believes is more sustainable for an already fatigued force.

Beyond military risks, Zamir is acutely aware of the humanitarian and international consequences of conquering Gaza City, home to an estimated one million Palestinians. The plan involves relocating these residents south of the Netzarim Corridor, a move critics, including the UN, warn could constitute “forcible transfer” and trigger a humanitarian catastrophe. Gaza’s healthcare system is on the brink of collapse, and aid agencies are largely shut out. Zamir has highlighted the impossibility of governing such a large displaced population, especially without a viable alternative to Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, a point echoed by Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, who warned that occupation would make Israel legally responsible for Gaza’s civilians.

Internationally, the plan has already drawn fierce backlash. Germany, Israel’s second-largest arms supplier, suspended weapons deliveries on August 9, citing the operation’s potential to worsen Gaza’s hunger crisis. A joint statement from the UK, Germany, Italy, Australia, and New Zealand condemned the move, warning of “mass famine.” Zamir’s concerns about Israel’s deteriorating global standing are grounded in these reactions, as well as South Africa’s ongoing genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice, fueled by the war’s civilian.

Zamir’s dissent has not gone unnoticed, igniting a political storm. Netanyahu’s son, Yair, accused him of “mutiny,” while National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir demanded a public commitment to obey orders, even hinting at dismissal. Some reports suggest Zamir might resign, a move that could destabilize the IDF further, given the recent resignations of his predecessor, Herzi Halevi, and Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar. Yet, Zamir enjoys public support, with a recent Jerusalem Post poll showing him outshining Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz in approval ratings. His defense of a “culture of debate” within the IDF, “a vital component of our history,” has resonated with those wary of blind obedience to a government seen as driven by far-right agendas, such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s call to “erase the Palestinian state.”

For Zamir, the conquest of Gaza City risks not just lives but Israel’s moral and strategic compass. His warnings reflect a commander grappling with the realities of a prolonged war: a military stretched to its limits, hostages in peril, and a nation facing global isolation. As one protester outside his home declared, pouring red paint to symbolize “rivers of blood,” the plan could be a “wild gamble” with catastrophic consequences. Whether Zamir’s cautions will sway the cabinet, or lead to his ouster, remains to be seen, but his stand underscores a critical truth: in war, the boldest plans can carry the heaviest costs.