As the Israeli war in the Gaza Strip approaches its third year, Tel Aviv finds itself mired in a complex strategic dilemma, revealing the contradictions between the political ambitions of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and the security and military considerations imposed by realities on the ground.

The plan promoted by Netanyahu and his supporters within the ruling coalition, aimed at occupying Gaza City, clashes with the security establishment’s view. Eyal Zamir, the Israeli Chief of Staff, warned that this option could turn Gaza into an open war of attrition, in addition to directly threatening the lives of the remaining hostages. The question here is: can Netanyahu risk confronting the military establishment at a time when he most needs internal cohesion?

The deeper dilemma lies in trying to reconcile two contradictory goals: recovering the hostages on one hand and achieving military decisiveness on the other. Although these two goals represent a broad popular demand, achieving both simultaneously seems almost impossible, generating a sharp internal division. The opposition calls for accepting international initiatives, proceeding with a prisoner exchange deal, and a ceasefire, paving the way for establishing a new Palestinian administration in Gaza. Netanyahu rejects this fearing that this path would revive the independent Palestinian state project with unprecedented international support.

This division reflects a deeper crisis in the structure of the Israeli political system, where party and coalition calculations have overtaken strategic interest. Many observers believe Netanyahu carefully balances his steps to avoid the fall of his government more than he seeks to actually end the war. This behavior makes the war hostage to internal politics and opens the door to strategic mistakes that could have multiplied costs in the long term. Internally, the crisis of recruiting Haredim escalates, as the army faces a severe manpower shortage, while religious parties allied with the government reject any tampering with exemptions for religious institute students. This contradiction between security necessities and political interests exacerbates the fragility of the ruling coalition and places Israel in a dilemma of fairly distributing the burdens of war among its components.

On the international stage, Donald Trump, the U.S. president, emerges as a pivotal player. Since his return to the White House in January 2025, he continues to affirm his military support for Israel but simultaneously stresses that continuing the war without a political horizon harms Israel’s image and weakens its alliances. His recent statements, predicting a near end to the conflict, have opened another question: can Israel ignore the escalating American and international pressures without losing its strategic position in the long term?

These political and security challenges coincide with escalating economic challenges, represented by declining investment and damage to vital sectors such as tourism and industry, at a time when the cost of the war has risen unprecedentedly. Thus, the demand to reopen the economy and revive production has become an urgent matter no less important than any potential military achievement.

In conclusion, Israel finds itself at a historic crossroads: either it clings to a military option that prolongs the conflict and plunges it into international isolation, or it engages in a serious political process with the Palestinians that opens prospects for regional integration and economic and social stability.