In the past two weeks, Israelis have heard three different tunes about Gaza.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his government intended to take military control of the entire Gaza Strip, and the security cabinet approved a plan to seize Gaza City. Days later, he insisted, “Our goal is not to occupy Gaza,” while calling for Israeli “overriding security control” and a non-Israeli civilian administration.
Meanwhile, the IDF spokesperson announced the “first stages” of operations and said troops were already holding the outskirts of the city.
Plans for Gaza City
Over the same period, Defense Minister Israel Katz issued maximalist warnings, saying Gaza City could be destroyed unless Hamas accepts Israel’s terms to end the war, including disarmament and the release of all hostages.
Calling this the “gates of hell,” he promised devastating consequences if those terms are not met. Whatever one thinks of such rhetoric, it is a public threat. Our enemies hear it, test it, and measure whether it is backed by action.
The result is strategic confusion. On Friday, Israel “approved” a plan. On Sunday it “expected to complete” a new offensive quickly. On Wednesday the army said it had begun preliminaries while calling up tens of thousands of reservists. On Thursday, international organizations warned of dire humanitarian consequences.
Then, yet again, there were more approvals and more warnings. This drumbeat has produced a growing perception, in Israel and abroad, of announcements without execution. Even foreign outlets are asking whether Israel has truly begun the offensive or is still stuck in cycles of declarations.
Our message today is simple, and it is directed at the prime minister, the defense minister, and the IDF leadership: stop threatening. Either do it or don’t do it.
If Israel has decided that re-occupying Gaza, or parts of it, is necessary for our security, say so clearly, present the plan, and act. That plan must define the scope of military rule, the force levels, the legal framework, coordination with allies, humanitarian corridors, rules of engagement, the cost in shekels and soldiers’ lives, and the exit conditions that would end such a regime.
Vague talk about “security control” without a governance blueprint is not a strategy.
If, on the other hand, the government does not intend to occupy Gaza, drop the language that implies otherwise. Stop promising to “level” a city if Hamas does not comply. Such threats cheapen deterrence when they are not followed by decisive moves, and they hand our critics an easy narrative.
The alternative to occupation must then be stated with equal clarity: sustained pressure operations against Hamas leadership and infrastructure, hardened border defenses, a real plan for an alternative Palestinian civil authority that is neither Hamas nor a proxy for it, and a serious diplomatic track with regional partners to underwrite postwar stabilization.
If the objective is the return of all hostages and a demilitarized Gaza, explain how those goals will be achieved without military rule, and on what timeline.
Mixed messaging also undermines unity in our own ranks. Last year, former defense minister Yoav Gallant publicly rejected any long-term Israeli military government in Gaza. That argument, whether one agrees or not, at least stated a clear position.
What Israelis have heard this month are overlapping and sometimes contradictory claims about control, occupation, and “overriding” authority. That is not the clarity a country needs when calling up 60,000 reservists and asking families to endure another round of loss and uncertainty.
Words matter in war. Threats that are not carried out teach adversaries that they can wait us out. Announcements without follow-through drain public patience and erode international support. Every day of ambiguity increases the cost of whatever choice comes next.
So choose. If the cabinet’s decision is to re-enter and hold Gaza City, move with a defined civil-military framework, open humanitarian corridors before the operation, publish measurable objectives, and appoint a single, empowered wartime communicator to brief the public daily. If the decision is not to occupy, stop saying you will, stop promising to raze cities, and focus every lever – from military pressure to diplomacy – on securing the hostages’ release and enabling a credible alternative authority in Gaza.
Israelis are resilient and can handle hard truths. What we cannot afford is strategic drift dressed up as tough talk. Either do it or don’t, and tell the country which path you have chosen. Our enemies are listening. So are we.