Related Post
No one disagrees that the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation on October 7, 2023 caused a massive shock in the corridors of decision-making in the Israeli occupation, whether political, security, military, or even media. Indicators of disagreement and confusion have appeared in several files, which we will try to point out the most prominent of in the following lines. :
Responsibility for the security, intelligence, and operational failure is a fundamental factor of disagreement between the Prime Minister of the occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the leaders of the occupation army, as each party tries to evade responsibility and shift it to the other party. In this context, Netanyahu seeks to hold the army responsible. Under the pretext that he had not received any intelligence information that would enable him to take a preventive decision.
Internal disputes during times of battle weaken the morale and readiness to fight in the party that suffers from them, and when the dispute is between the leaders and the military, this increases the chances of wrong decisions on the battlefield and hesitation, prolongs the duration of the battle, and raises its cost, which is what Israel faces.
Netanyahu still refuses to bear responsibility, even though 80% of Israelis hold him responsible, according to a poll conducted by the Lazard Institute. The Israeli Democratic Movement also asked the occupation’s legal advisor to open an investigation into the burning of documents in Netanyahu’s office after October 7. In order to reduce his responsibility for failure.
While Netanyahu did not indicate any statement bearing the meaning of taking responsibility for the event, other officials, such as Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, Shin Bet head Ronen Bar, and Military Intelligence Chief Aharon Haliva, made statements in which they claimed responsibility, and similar statements were issued by Army Chief of Staff Herzi Halevy. National Security Council Chairman Tzachi Hanegbi, Air Force Commander Tomer Bar, and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.
Even Netanyahu’s statement on the evening of October 25 – which came after he avoided the media for 18 days – in which he indicated: “Everyone will have to provide answers regarding the failures of October 7, and me too.” Thus, Netanyahu is talking about answers and clarifications, not about taking responsibility as prime minister. This is consistent with what Haaretz newspaper reported that Netanyahu is currently collecting evidence against the army to hold them solely responsible. The newspaper indicated that Netanyahu is wrong to believe that he is able to evade accountability. In the same context, reports stated that at least 3 ministers are considering submitting their resignations from the government due to Netanyahu’s evasion of acknowledging failure and taking responsibility.
In addition to responsibility – and at the height of the battle (on the fourth day of it) – another dispute emerged at the media level, as Netanyahu appointed a new spokesman to coordinate between military correspondents, a task that was usually assigned to the Minister of Defense and the Chief of Staff of the Army.
Netanyahu also canceled a speech he was scheduled to give to reserve soldiers at a military base near the Gaza Strip, where some officers insulted him and called him a liar, accusing him of responsibility for the killing of their comrades.
There are other disagreements over assessments, plans, and decisions, and Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper indicated that there are disagreements – specifically between Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant – that hinder joint work. Especially regarding the ground operation, the launch of which was postponed more than once. Netanyahu hesitated to give the decision, and there were reports that there was American pressure to give opportunities to free more hostages before the ground war began.
There is also a disagreement about the position on Hezbollah, as Israeli reports indicated that the Defense Minister asked Netanyahu to agree to carry out a pre-emptive strike on Hezbollah before starting a ground operation in Gaza, but Netanyahu did not give permission for that either, which prompted circles close to the army to describe With cheese.
Israeli Channel 13 said: Netanyahu was angered by the leaks of the proceedings of the cabinet meeting, and that he demanded a lie detector test, adding: The leaks that particularly angered Netanyahu, dealt with the dispute between him and Gallant over a pre-emptive strike in the north. Leaks from the Israeli Cabinet and War Council are still continuing, and Netanyahu has been subjected to successive criticism.
There is also a clear disagreement about the goals. While the government announced that its goal is to end the presence of Hamas, the army is not convinced that this is an achievable goal, and there is disagreement about how to achieve it. The army believes that the government does not set clear goals, and without this clarity no victory can be achieved. .
From another angle, the introduction of new ministers into the government, such as: Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, has led to more confusion and disagreement, as they still do not have influence in the decision-making process, and they have been prevented from meeting with officials outside ministerial discussions.
Other controversies
There are also disagreements over the issue of prisoners, and their families continue to criticize Netanyahu and hold him responsible for the lives of their relatives. He has received harsh criticism because the Qassam Brigades released two American hostages before releasing any Israeli hostages.
The business sector’s confidence in the government’s management of the economic file has declined, and there are several factors for this, including dissatisfaction among the displaced from Sderot and the areas surrounding the Gaza Strip due to poor living conditions and the performance of various ministries, in addition to the high financial cost of calling more than 360,000 reserve soldiers to the army.
At a lower level of government, there is a significant decline in the popularity of the Likud Party, and therefore Israeli political experts expect that the party will create a distance between it and Netanyahu, or that there will be a separation between Netanyahu and the party.
There were disagreements over financial management during the war, and much criticism was directed at Finance Minister Smotrich; Due to the inefficiency of economic tools and measures during wartime, the government is accused of failing to deal with the economic repercussions of the war until this moment. In this context, the longer the war lasts, the greater the direct damage to the Israeli occupation.
There are many disagreements within the corridors of decision-making in the occupation, stemming from a crisis of confidence between Netanyahu and the military and security leaders. In fact, there is a state of rifts within Israeli institutions ranging from strategic files to local service files, and the continuation of these disputes may create more challenges as well. Because it hinders the adoption of a clear policy.
There is a well-known part of the disputes that began before the battle of “Al-Aqsa Flood,” and we have seen large demonstrations in protest against the judicial reforms that were rejected by groups from the two institutions: the security and military. Then there is a part of it related to the inability to deal with discipline with the shock that was achieved by the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation. In addition to external pressures that increase differences between decision-makers within the occupying state.
Internal disputes during times of battle have negative effects on the front on which it is witnessed. They weaken morale and reduce the process of preparing for combat. When we talk about a dispute between politicians and the military, the possibility of seeing wrong decisions on the battlefield increases. Disagreements also increase hesitation and prolong the battle, which means more cost in all its dimensions.
