Edited by: TJVNews.com

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, together with a newly appointed national-security team, is steering Israel toward a sweeping and intensified ground campaign in Gaza. According to a detailed report that appeared on Monday in The Wall Street Journal, the Israeli leadership now believes that only a sustained and forceful military occupation of key territories inside the Gaza Strip can achieve a final and decisive defeat of Hamas, the Iranian-backed organization designated as a terrorist group by the United States, the European Union, and Israel.

The shift in strategy was already underway this past Sunday, when Israeli infantry forces moved decisively into northern Gaza and into areas surrounding the southern city of Rafah. Simultaneously, Israeli troops were redeployed to the Netzarim corridor, a strategic central axis that divides the enclave in two. This area had been previously vacated under a temporary cease-fire agreement. The latest deployment, as reported by The Wall Street Journal, marks a deliberate re-entry into these zones, signaling a broader shift toward retaking and holding territory rather than relying solely on aerial and precision strikes.

These operations were also paired with targeted assaults against senior Hamas political leadership based in Gaza, adding a decapitation element to Israel’s wider strategic plan.

At the heart of the new Israeli strategy is a core belief articulated by Netanyahu and his recently appointed inner circle of security officials: Hamas must be broken militarily before any post-conflict political framework for Gaza can be developed. The report in The Wall Street Journal emphasized that this view marks a distinct departure from earlier positions within the Israeli security establishment, which maintained that Hamas could be gradually weakened through military operations, followed by the creation of a new governing authority in Gaza.

Defense Minister Israel Katz and IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, both key figures in the new strategy team, are reportedly aligned with Netanyahu’s belief in overwhelming force as a precursor to any diplomatic path forward. Their thinking has also been bolstered by the Israeli military’s recent success in degrading Hezbollah’s capabilities in Lebanon, as well as by the backing of Washington, particularly from figures aligned with the previous Trump administration, for a robust offensive posture against Hamas.

As Katz put it in a recent policy statement highlighted in The Wall Street Journal report, Israel will continue to “gradually seize territory from Gaza” for as long as Hamas maintains control of hostages. This statement sheds light on the military-led logic of territorial conquest as leverage — both for defeating Hamas and for shaping any future political arrangements.

However, this bold shift in military doctrine is not without domestic controversy. Despite Israel’s long-standing policy consensus around security-first approaches, recent polling — cited by The Wall Street Journal — shows that a majority of Israelis, including voters from the political right, now favor a cessation of fighting if it leads to the release of the remaining hostages in Gaza.

This segment of the public, while still deeply skeptical of Hamas’s intentions, believes that reconstruction efforts in Gaza and a fortified network of regional alliances could yield a more sustainable path to peace and reduce the organization’s power in the long term. For them, a prolonged ground war raises concerns about rising casualties, international isolation, and the risk of entrenching Israel in a costly and open-ended occupation.

Despite nearly a year and a half of punishing conflict, Hamas remains operational. According to The Wall Street Journal report, the terrorist group has leveraged hostage exchanges in recent months not only to secure the release of its own operatives but also to project continued authority over Gaza’s population. Behind the scenes, Hamas is reportedly actively recruiting new fighters and repurposing unexploded Israeli munitions to replenish its arsenal and prepare for future combat.

This persistence emphasizes a central problem confronting Israel’s evolving strategy: military pressure alone has so far failed to eradicate Hamas’s operational capabilities or its influence over Gaza. While Israeli forces have inflicted significant damage, the group continues to adapt and regroup—often in the very areas vacated by Israeli troops after initial offensives.

The Wall Street Journal report highlighted that Netanyahu’s advisers believe Israel’s earlier campaigns could have dealt more damage to Hamas had they not been constrained by two primary factors: ammunition shortages and pressure from the Biden administration to exercise greater restraint and expand humanitarian aid.

Now, however, the calculus appears to have changed. The Trump administration—according to The Wall Street Journal—has reportedly increased the flow of ammunition to Israel and encouraged a more aggressive posture, providing what Netanyahu’s circle sees as political and logistical breathing room to escalate operations.

Israel’s victory over Hezbollah in Lebanon has further freed up military assets, enabling the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to redirect more troops toward Gaza for an extended ground campaign. This includes not just offensive combat missions, but also control over aid distribution routes—a critical component of Israel’s strategy to both pressure Hamas and assert dominance over Gaza’s civilian infrastructure.

Netanyahu’s team views Hamas’s extensive tunnel network and embedded infrastructure as a central obstacle to lasting victory. As The Wall Street Journal report explained, rooting out these entrenched systems will require sustained combat operations, potentially lasting months or even years. The human and infrastructural toll is expected to be severe, with advocates of this approach acknowledging that the destruction will deepen but arguing that such suffering is a necessary price for defeating Hamas definitively.

Critics, however, strongly disagree. Political and military analysts interviewed by The Wall Street Journal contend that no amount of military force alone can permanently remove Hamas without a parallel diplomatic effort that offers Palestinians a credible alternative to the Iranian terrorist proxy. Furthermore, continued bombardment and territorial occupation endanger the lives of the remaining Israeli hostages and undermine Israel’s international standing.

Even as Netanyahu pushes forward militarily, support within Israeli society is far from monolithic. The Israeli military, in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, emphasized that its plans are guided by political directives and adherence to international law, but this has done little to quiet the internal debate.

Israel’s population is showing signs of fatigue and polarization. A March 9th poll conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute—a leading Jerusalem-based think tank—found that 73% of Israelis supported negotiating with Hamas to end the fighting and secure the release of remaining hostages, even if it meant withdrawing from Gaza. Strikingly, 56% of right-wing respondents and 62% of Netanyahu’s own Likud party voters backed this cease-fire approach.

In contrast, a separate poll by Channel 14—a media outlet known for its support of Netanyahu—found 57% of Israelis favored resuming the war, with 39% opposed. The Wall Street Journal reported that the divergence between these polls highlights a fractured public mood: while some are still willing to support a military solution, others are increasingly skeptical of its efficacy or sustainability.

Mobilizing additional reservists for a prolonged campaign could become increasingly difficult. Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute, told The Wall Street Journal that societal exhaustion and overburdened reservist forces may soon reach a breaking point, threatening the very feasibility of Netanyahu’s long-term plan.

In recent days, large-scale protests have erupted across Israel, led most notably by families of hostages still held in Gaza. Their message is unequivocal: halt the war and secure the safe return of their loved ones. These demonstrations have become a visible and emotional flashpoint in the broader public debate, emphasizing the toll of continued military operations on Israeli families.

At the same time, as The Wall Street Journal reported, political tensions have surged following Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s attempt to remove the head of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency. The intelligence chief, who supports a negotiated cease-fire deal, has reportedly resisted Netanyahu’s agenda, leading to what many view as a politicized effort to sideline a dissenting voice within Israel’s security establishment. The move has sparked outrage and protests, and for now, the dismissal has been blocked by Israel’s Supreme Court—yet another indicator of institutional pushback against the government’s war-first strategy.

As Israel weighs its next steps, the country’s military configuration is also undergoing a strategic reshuffle. According to the report in The Wall Street Journal, regular army units are expected to bear the brunt of a renewed ground invasion in Gaza, while reservists will be repositioned to other, less active flashpoints—including the borders with Lebanon and Syria, and the increasingly volatile Judea and Samaria region where Hamas has a significant footprint.

This redistribution of forces reflects a recognition of the logistical demands of a sustained counterinsurgency operation in Gaza. But experts warn it won’t be easy. A large occupying force will not only strain Israel’s defense budget but could also expose troops to heightened risk and create a proliferation of new targets for Hamas attacks. Ofer Fridman, a former Israeli officer and military scholar at King’s College London, told The Wall Street Journal that such an occupation would carry high costs—not just in terms of personnel and resources, but in terms of international reputation and legitimacy.

JNS reported that current and former Israeli officials briefed on the matter told the Washington Post that the new tactics would likely include direct military control of humanitarian aid, targeting Hamas’s civilian leadership and evacuating women, children and vetted noncombatants to “humanitarian bubbles” while laying siege to those who remain.

Israeli officials emphasized to the Washington Post that Jerusalem is still waiting for the outcome of ceasefire talks and no decisions have been made on whether—or how—to escalate the current phase of the offensive, which has so far consisted mostly of aerial bombardment.

According to people familiar with the planning, a full-scale invasion and occupation would require up to five army divisions, potentially stretching the Israel Defense Forces thin as reservists increasingly voice skepticism about an open-ended conflict, as was reported by JNS.

On the other side of the battlefield, Hamas remains a resilient, if increasingly controversial, presence. While the group is widely unpopular among many Gaza residents—particularly in light of the devastation brought on by war—the absence of a viable political alternative allows Hamas to retain a foothold. Tahani Mustafa, a senior Palestine analyst at the International Crisis Group, noted in The Wall Street Journal report that Hamas has managed to maintain recruitment efforts and even grow them in recent months, fueled in part by anger over destruction and displacement.

This reality highlights the dilemma at the heart of Israel’s war strategy: Hamas, designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and the European Union, may be militarily weakened, but it is not yet strategically defeated. Its continued existence in the power vacuum of Gaza complicates any long-term solution and fuels the argument that military solutions alone may be insufficient.

Within Israel, a growing number of analysts and citizens believe a more prudent approach is needed. As The Wall Street Journal reported, many Israelis now favor a temporary pause in hostilities—one that would prioritize the release of the remaining hostages and allow for recalibrated planning for any future campaign.

Avner Golov, a former senior director at Israel’s National Security Council and now part of the national-security advisory group MIND Israel, articulated a sentiment that is becoming increasingly common: “We will have a second round and find ourselves in Gaza again,” he said. “But we need to be smarter.”

This reflects a broader mood of tactical reassessment, not surrender. Many Israelis accept that Hamas poses a long-term threat, but argue that the timing, manner, and political context of military action must be reconsidered. There is an emerging belief that rushing into another bloody ground campaign without a clear strategic endgame could ultimately harm Israel more than help it.

As The Wall Street Journal reporting makes clear, Israel now stands at a critical juncture—one shaped as much by internal political battles and social unrest as by military maneuvers. The war in Gaza is no longer just a battlefield issue; it has become a referendum on Israel’s identity, leadership, and long-term security doctrine.

Whether Netanyahu’s government can navigate this growing unrest while pursuing its uncompromising military objectives remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the path forward will be anything but simple—and the consequences will be felt far beyond Gaza’s borders.