Civil-Military Showdown? IDF Chief’s Words Leave Israel Asking Questions
Explore the controversy surrounding IDF Chief Zamir's reported comments on military-political authority, and its implications for Israel's democratic principles and regional diplomacy.
Twitter
Questions over the balance of power between Israel’s political leadership and the military surfaced on Sunday night, following reports attributing controversial comments to IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir.
According to media accounts, Zamir allegedly remarked that “the military has delivered the operation, and now it is the political echelon’s turn.” The statement, if confirmed, would represent a breach of a core democratic principle, the subordination of the army to the elected government.
The IDF Spokesperson’s Unit was pressed late Sunday for clarification. Instead of issuing a firm denial, the response pointed only to the official statement released following the chief of staff’s visit to a Navy base: “The only comments made are those contained in the official announcement.” Critics described the reply as evasive, warning that the absence of a categorical denial leaves the issue unresolved and troubling.
Analysts have urged former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant to intervene directly, summoning the chief of staff for clarification and affirming a clear line of authority: Israel’s civilian leadership sets national policy, while the army carries it out.
The timing of the controversy highlights the contrast between internal disputes and Israel’s ongoing strategic maneuvering abroad. Behind the scenes, officials are advancing sweeping regional initiatives. A secret visit to the United Arab Emirates by Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer last week was part of wider talks shaping the “day after” Gaza, with potential involvement from the United States, Saudi Arabia, and other Arab states.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already stated that Gaza’s civilian administration will not fall to Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, but instead to an international body led by Washington and supported by Gulf states. Israeli officials argue that the war has already served a strategic purpose for moderate Arab governments, easing Iranian pressure and paving the way for new alliances.
Commentators note the irony: while Jerusalem’s political leadership is working to construct a new regional order, divisions at the top of the military risk sending mixed signals. As political analyst Yaakov Bardugo argued on Israel Hayom Radio, “It is time to put the wheels back on track. Israel has one political echelon that sets policy, and the army’s role is to execute it.”