Security adviser opposes Gaza City takeover plan

National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi voiced opposition to Netanyahu's Gaza City takeover proposal amid a cabinet debate.

Security adviser opposes Gaza City takeover plan

National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi opposed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's plan to take over Gaza City, telling the security cabinet that he is not prepared to give up on saving the hostages. He questioned how anyone who had seen videos of hostages could push a binary choice of everything or nothing. Several senior security officials reportedly warned the move could endanger hostages, including IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir and Mossad Chief David Barnea.

Despite the misgivings, the security cabinet approved the proposal to take over Gaza City. The government described the move as a step to defeat Hamas, while some ministers pressed for a broader occupation or argued for a ceasefire path if a deal could be reached. The plan includes evacuating civilians toward the south with a two month window before a ground offensive, a tactic some argue could worsen hostage risk. The attorney general raised international law concerns about occupation-like actions, while hostages’ families protested in Tel Aviv, saying force will not secure their loved ones. Netanyahu and coalition partners debated the plan's scope and the political cost of escalation.

The clash inside the cabinet exposes a core tension in wartime decision making: urgency versus restraint. Hanegbi’s critique centers on hostage safety, a factor that can derail long-term negotiations even as military momentum drives action. On one side, hardliners seek a decisive move to crush Hamas; on the other, voices warn that a rapid occupation-like operation may backfire by endangering hostages and triggering broader backlash. The debate reveals how the government balances legal risk, humanitarian concerns, and political optics in a crisis where every move sends a signal to both domestic audiences and regional players.

As the plan moves from proposal to action, questions remain about what comes next. The distinction between occupier and controller is legal nuance with real consequences, and the exit path hinges on hostage outcomes and potential ceasefire talks. The episode highlights how coalition dynamics can shape or stall strategic choices in a high-stakes war.

Highlights

The coming days will show whether restraint or momentum defines the path forward