Is Hamas cracking? Well, not quite…
The war has become a fixed reality in Israel, and for decision-makers, it seems to serve as the answer to a recurring question: What is the actual strategy? The same leadership that once created the doctrine that resulted in the Oct. 7 massacre — containing attacks, economic peace, and conflict management—has now taken a sharp turn, presenting it as a “lesson” learned from the calamity that erupted 18 months ago.
This turn has resulted in the continuation of the conflict, with no clear purpose or timeline. It reflects a deliberate refusal to develop a strategy, partly out of an understanding that even discussing one would raise difficult dilemmas and force decisions that could destabilize the coalition.
In the absence of a strategy, fantasies are spread: the idea of achieving "total victory" in Gaza relies on the assumption that more force will cause Hamas to weaken, with claims of “signs of cracking” in the organization; the fervent belief that Trump’s plan for Gaza is feasible, even though no country is willing to cooperate with it, and Washington itself is losing interest; the notion that by demolishing and emptying refugee camps in the West Bank, we can erase the Palestinian memory of displacement and achieve their de-radicalization; and the belief that we are on the verge of shaping a new Middle East—one that is stable and more friendly toward Israel.
Israel’s dramatic military achievements earlier in the war are eroding due to its insistence on prolonged fighting without presenting a clear strategy.
Land conquest as a non-strategy
The absence of a coherent Israeli strategy seems to lean on an ancient-yet-revitalized element: territorial conquest. Gaza, Syria, and, to a lesser extent, Lebanon illustrate a new concept that masquerades as the conclusion of a serious scientific experiment: “Arabs only understand when land is taken from them.” This approach ignores historical lessons, such as the 1967 war, which demonstrated that land occupation did not lead to deterrence.
In the background, there is growing suspicion that ideological-religious motivations about the sanctity of the land are disguised as security or strategic reasoning. This is evident in the statements of leaders from the religious Zionist movement, led by Bezalel Smotrich, who has made it clear that his goal is to change the DNA of the West Bank and that he is awaiting American approval for annexation in the region.
Behind this confident façade lies a deep misunderstanding of the enemy and the environment: a profound underestimation of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Iranians, who, despite suffering severe blows, have survived; a failure to grasp their fundamental logic and rationale; and often an imposition of a classical military perception on the struggle against them. There is also a misguided assumption that normalization with the Arab world, particularly Saudi Arabia, is achievable, despite Saudi Arabia’s repeated insistence that such a step is contingent on political dialogue with the Palestinians and abandoning the idea of emptying Gaza.
Lack of public discourse and the leadership’s secrecy
All these dramas are unfolding without any real dialogue between the public and the leadership, which treats the seismic shifts it is planning as a “secret,” as though they are covert commando operations rather than changes that will have long-term implications. At the center of this is the possibility that Israel is advancing toward the conquest of Gaza, a move that would require immense resources. This is happening without internal consensus and without properly explaining to Israelis the costs of such an operation, including the likely abandonment of hostages, who are extremely unlikely to be released during an all-out war in Gaza.
This mission cannot be executed by a leadership that was responsible for October 7, whose lingering doctrines may not have been uprooted, and that struggles to gain domestic support, as evidenced by cracks appearing in the reserve forces. There is a constant impression that political survival motives dominate its decisions.
Dr. Michael MilshteinHistory's lessons
During World War II, Churchill maintained an honest and direct dialogue with his people, promising them “blood, toil, tears, and sweat.” It is recommended that Israel’s leadership—expecting the highest level of public sacrifice, as was seen after October 7—adopt similar transparency. The leadership must abandon the slogans and fantasies that are causing severe damage and articulate a clear strategic purpose in every arena. In turn, the public must make it clear—taking a central lesson from October 7—that it no longer “buys” the claim that “the wise ones up top know what they’re doing,” and demand precise explanations for current actions and future goals.
