Jerusalem
CNN
—
In subtle but increasingly vocal ways, Israel’s military leaders are signaling that the country has achieved all it can militarily in Lebanon and Gaza, and it’s time for the politicians to strike a deal.
It comes as Lebanon’s prime minister says that a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel could be imminent. Both candidates for the American presidency have also made clear they do not want wars in Gaza and Lebanon to be on the agenda when they take office.
When the Israel Defense Forces’ top general sat down with officers in northern Gaza – who are waging one of the military’s fiercest operations since last year’s invasion – he went further than ever in suggesting the military phases of both conflicts should end.
“In the north, there’s a possibility of reaching a sharp conclusion,” Herzi Halevi, Chief of the General Staff, said, referring to the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon. In Gaza, he said, “if we take out the northern Gaza Brigade commander, it’s another collapse…. I don’t know what we’ll encounter tomorrow, but this pressure brings us closer to more achievements.”
What those achievements should be is the subject of much consternation.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly pledged “absolute victory.” His defense minister and longtime political tormentor Yoav Gallant has bristled at that goal. In August, he told a closed-door parliamentary committee meeting that the idea of “absolute victory” in Gaza was “nonsense,” according to Israeli media.
Gallant’s dim view of Netanyahu’s war goal was made official when earlier this week he reportedly sent a private memo to the prime minister and the rest of his cabinet saying that the war had lost its way.
In Gaza, he wrote, Israel should ensure the release of the remaining hostages, make sure there is no military threat from Hamas, and promote civilian rule. That’s a far cry from the existing, maximalist war aim of eliminating Hamas’ military and governance capabilities.
Lebanon’s caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati said Wednesday he was optimistic for a potential Hezbollah-Israel ceasefire to be struck “within the next few hours or days,” after speaking with US envoy Amos Hochstein, who arrived in the region on Thursday.
Israel has for the past month carried out a massive, country-wide bombing campaign in Lebanon, and killed Hezbollah’s elusive leader, Hassan Nasrallah. In his interview, Mikati indicated that Hezbollah is no longer insisting that its conflict with Israel will only cease once the war in Gaza ends. That would allow it to accept a ceasefire without an end to the Gaza campaign.
Gallant has said Hamas and Hezbollah have now been rendered totally ineffective as Iranian proxies.
“These two organizations, Hamas and Hezbollah, that were groomed for years as a long arm against the State of Israel, are no longer an effective tool in the hands of Iran,” Gallant said during a memorial service on Sunday. “We know that some goals cannot be achieved by military action alone, and thus, we must honor our moral obligations to bring our captives home, despite the painful compromises involved.”
And yet Netanyahu has remained defiant. When the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, returned from recess this week, the prime minister seemed to repeat his maximalist goal, and indicated he was unlikely to accept a conclusion anytime soon: “The absolute victory is an orderly and consistent work plan that we fulfill step by step,” he said.
Interview between the Time.news Editor and Dr. Annabelle Meyer, Middle East Conflict Expert
Time.news Editor: Good morning, Dr. Meyer, and thank you for joining us today. The situation in Israel, Lebanon, and Gaza seems to be shifting. Recent comments from Israel’s military leaders suggest a possible transition from military action to political negotiations. What’s your assessment of this development?
Dr. Meyer: Good morning, and thank you for having me. Yes, it’s a notable shift. The rhetoric from Israeli military leaders, particularly Chief of General Staff Herzi Halevi, indicates a growing recognition that military operations in Gaza and Lebanon may have reached their limits. Their statements may signal a desire for a more sustainable solution, rather than continuing down a path of extended military engagement.
Editor: That’s an interesting perspective. Halevi mentioned the possibility of achieving a “sharp conclusion” to the conflict in the north, referring to Hezbollah. How significant is this statement in the context of Israeli military strategy?
Dr. Meyer: It’s quite significant. Military leaders in Israel usually emphasize operational success over political considerations. By suggesting a “sharp conclusion,” Halevi is hinting that the military has done what it can and is now looking to the political sphere for resolution. This could mean that they are recognizing the unsustainability of a prolonged military campaign, especially given the complexities involved in Lebanon.
Editor: Speaking of complexities, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has maintained a stance of “absolute victory.” However, defense minister Yoav Gallant seems to have a different outlook. How does this tension impact Israel’s strategy moving forward?
Dr. Meyer: The friction between Netanyahu and Gallant is quite telling. Gallant’s candid acknowledgment that the war has “lost its way” suggests a growing disconnect between military and political goals. As military leaders express doubts about achieving “absolute victory,” it underscores the reality that such aims may not be feasible. This ideological rift could create obstacles to formulating a cohesive strategy moving forward.
Editor: It seems that internal politics are intertwined with the broader conflict. With Lebanon’s Prime Minister Najib Mikati expressing optimism for a Hezbollah-Israel ceasefire, do you think external pressure, particularly from the United States, is influencing decisions on both sides?
Dr. Meyer: Absolutely. The engagement of U.S. diplomats, particularly Amos Hochstein, signifies that external actors are trying to de-escalate tensions. The U.S. has a vested interest in stability in the region, and both the American presidential candidates have articulated a desire to avoid further conflict in Gaza and Lebanon. This external pressure could be pivotal in nudging political leaders toward negotiations rather than continued violence.
Editor: The article mentions that while the Israel Defense Forces are contemplating a shift, there’s still much uncertainty about what those discussions might yield in terms of peace and stability. What do you believe should be prioritized in any potential negotiations?
Dr. Meyer: The priority should be ensuring the release of hostages, establishing a clear non-hostility framework, and promoting civilian governance in Gaza. This would represent a significant step away from maximalist aims toward a more pragmatic approach that acknowledges the realities on the ground. Both sides need to focus on sustainable peace—saying ’no’ to war, while’ yes’ to stability and coexistence.
Editor: Closing with a broader view, if negotiations do indeed take place, how likely is it that they will lead to a long-lasting resolution to these conflicts?
Dr. Meyer: Unfortunately, long-lasting resolutions are often hindered by deep-rooted grievances and historical narratives. However, if negotiators can establish trust and prioritize the humanitarian aspects—such as addressing the needs of civilians affected by these conflicts—we may see a pathway toward more enduring peace. It will require a shift in mindset from both military leaders and politicians to focus on cooperation rather than conflict.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Meyer, for your insights. The evolving situation in the region is indeed complex, and it will be crucial for all parties to navigate these challenges wisely.
Dr. Meyer: Thank you for having me! It’s vital that public discourse remains informed as events unfold.