Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The writer is Israel’s former prime minister, defence minister and IDF chief of staff
Almost 20 months after the massacre of October 7, 2023, Israel is at a critical crossroads. The country must decide whether to negotiate a deal to bring all hostages home and end the ongoing conflict, or to launch a full-scale assault on Gaza in pursuit of the elusive goal of “total victory” over Hamas.
However, this decision is not just about military strategy. It also involves a deeper choice for the Israeli government: to align with far-right ministers advocating for Gaza’s reoccupation and resettlement, or to turn towards the international community, embracing US President Donald Trump’s vision of regional peace and adherence to international law.
Recent reports suggest that President Trump has warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the US will withdraw support if the conflict is not resolved. Additionally, other countries, such as France, Britain, and Canada, have called for Israel to renew humanitarian aid to Gaza or face consequences. The pressure on Israel is mounting, and the stakes are high.
A negotiated deal would undoubtedly benefit Israel by bringing back all hostages, ending the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and opening the door to regional integration and economic opportunities. However, for Prime Minister Netanyahu, this path is fraught with political risks. It could jeopardize his far-right coalition, reignite calls for investigations into the October 7 massacre, and expedite his corruption trial, which has been stalled for years.
On the other hand, opting for a military offensive may shield Netanyahu politically in the short term, but it poses significant strategic risks. Israel has already inflicted considerable damage on Hamas, and a renewed offensive is unlikely to achieve a decisive victory. Moreover, it would result in further civilian casualties and international condemnation.
Many Israelis perceive Netanyahu’s aggressive stance as a ploy to shore up his political support rather than a genuine security imperative. The Prime Minister’s failure to address the root causes of the conflict and his reluctance to plan for the post-conflict scenario have left Israel in a precarious position.
A viable solution to the Gaza crisis would entail international cooperation, Arab-led governance, and a gradual transition to a new security framework. This plan has been on the table for some time, and while challenging, it remains the most realistic path to lasting peace and security in the region.
Israel’s strength in the region allows for a shift towards a broader peace agreement that includes the release of all hostages, the cessation of hostilities, and the pursuit of a stable regional order. Embracing this path would require bold leadership and a willingness to prioritize the national interest over political expediency.
In conclusion, the choice facing Israel is not just about ending the current conflict but about setting a course for a more secure and prosperous future. Prime Minister Netanyahu must decide whether to prioritize short-term political gains or pursue a sustainable path to peace and stability in the region. The stakes are high, but the opportunity for lasting change is within reach.
