The Gaza occupation plan ignites disputes and divisions within the cabinet and the heads of the National Security Council and Mossad join the opposition

A meeting of the Israeli political-security cabinet witnessed a sharp division over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to occupy Gaza. National Security Council head Tzachi Hanegbi declared his opposition to the plan, joining the position of Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, warning that seizing control of the city could endanger the lives of prisoners.

During the session, Hanegbi said, “I don’t understand how anyone who has seen the videos of the prisoners can adopt the ‘all or nothing’ principle… This means giving up the opportunity to rescue at least ten prisoners, because Hamas won’t meet this condition”.

Hanegbi added, “The ceasefire will enable an attempt to reach an agreement regarding the remaining ten… I completely agree with the chief of staff that seizing Gaza City endangers the lives of the hostages, and therefore I oppose the prime minister’s proposal”.

It should be noted that Hanegbi’s opposition to the Prime Minister’s position is rare.

Hanegbi also supported the call for a temporary ceasefire to allow for a prisoner exchange agreement.

The head of Mossad also expressed reservations about the operation and called for continued negotiations, while Settlement Minister Orit Struck attacked the coordinator for prisoners and missing persons affairs, Gal Hirsch.

During one of the breaks, a heated argument broke out between Minister Struck and Hirsch, when the latter said that “efforts to free hostages” should be included in the army’s mission.

Struck interrupted him loudly, saying, “That’s not the mission. The mission is to eliminate Hamas”.

“Liberating prisoners is a primary goal, and all our operations are geared toward that,” Hirsch replied.

“That’s how we’ve always been, fighting to protect civilians and return hostages,” he said.

In contrast, ministers from the far-right movement, including Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, insisted on the need to continue with a full, uninterrupted occupation, even if Hamas offered a temporary exchange deal, considering a halt to the occupation a “defeat”.