In their latest piece, the NYT reported that top IDF brass want to push for a cease-fire with Hamas as they are running out of munitions. This alleged view is shared by unnamed officials who are part of the security establishment. NYT interviewed nine unnamed former and current military officials who supposedly represent the mainstream view within Israel’s security apparatus.
The piece detailed the growing tensions between Netanyahu and the IDF military brass in terms of strategy. The article focused on the too-known difference in attitudes between some former and current Israeli security officials and the Netanyahu government.
It rehashed some known criticisms often heard from defeatist former IDF generals who have made Israel’s TV panels their new stage to showcase their defeatist anti-strategic attitudes towards the war. The narrative that prevails amongst anti-Netanyahu former generals is that Israel cannot beat Hamas and it better cut its losses by agreeing to a wanton "cease-fire" agreement that would supposedly release the remaining hostages whilst maintaining Hamas power in Gaza.
This line of thinking also postulates that every move that the government makes is in essence done through a cold political calculation rather than a candid position stemming from security and military motives. Netanyahu and his government are supposedly stalling the war to stay in power and therefore prevent the war from concluding as part of their "forever war" strategy.
The article did not provide new information that was not available publicly to avid media watchers in Israel; it simply recontextualized the defeatist attitudes towards the war in the security framework that would enable the propagators of this attitude to sell their arguments based on security rationales.
These unnamed security officials whose ranks are unknown are beating the cease-fire drums under the assumption that Israel could renew its fight after a cease-fire is temporarily reached and the hostages are released.
This utter mendacious falsehood is repeated and used to make parts of the population believe that not only is a hostage deal within reach, but the IDF could stop its offensive for a few weeks and then renew it as if it is like pushing the restart button on a computer.
Supposedly, the cunning and strategic terrorist organization would agree to release its most precious negotiating bargaining chip knowing that Israel would return to war with aims to destroy it. This is a fantasy that is sold by the "deal now" crowd who prefer to believe a simplistic fantasy than look at reality as it is.
The article attempts to paint the whole security establishment as holding these views while interviewing only 9 people. These officials consisting of some former generals knew the agenda of the NYT and knew that it was an ally to their views. The purpose of the article was to highlight the growing rift between Netanyahu and the top IDF brass who supposedly hold as a group the espoused views to pressure the government to stop the war.
If you are a security official who is unhappy with the current government policy, there is a straightforward playbook on the best way to apply pressure on the government. First, you have to find a sympathetic media outlet for your cause, then leak some disagreements between the political and military echelons and the media would frame it as a rift between respectable professional "sources within the security establishment" and the government.
These "security" officials could be a few low-ranking generals who have a different military-political agenda from the government. In war, there is not much difference between military attitudes and political ones, one can simply masquerade their political agenda under the guise of professional military opinion.
The article is part of a global campaign by Western liberal elites to pressure Israel to agree to a cease-fire at all costs and end the war. This view which is widely shared by the liberal milieu in Washinton circles and their counterparts in the media landscape is undergirded by the view that Israel has no real way to eliminate Hamas.
Therefore, it should satisfy its military goals by reaching a pyrrhic victory and maintaining the status quo. This piece is an attempt to sell to global audiences and Israelis that it is in Israel’s interest to agree to a calamitous ceasefire agreement that would keep Hamas in power and argue that it is in Israel's long-term security interest.
The classic narrative that is circulating these days amongst NYT clique and left-of-center Democrat officials like Senator Shumer is that Israel must be saved from itself. Israel, according to the narrative, has been captured by a Machiavellian politician surrounded by far-right radical ministers who prevent the country from acting in accordance with the American interest… sorry the "Israeli interest."
Atar Porat NYT has correctly identified the growing rifts between some in the military general staff and Prime Minister Netanyahu and his cabinet. However, this article showcases a textbook example of an opinion piece representing the views of the political class in Washington (and a small minority in Israel) masquerading as a fair journalistic representation of the mainstream views of the "professionals".
As with other similar pieces in the NYT, the espoused opinions are part of an echo chamber of liberal elites in Israel and the U.S. This echo chamber of like-minded people is rarely indicative of what most military leaders believe despite the wishful thinking of State Department analysts.
- Atar Porat is an independent author at the Israel Defense and Security Forum's (IDSF) Research Department