I’ll attempt to connect three elements: Israel’s strategy in Gaza, the IDF’s operations in the northern part of the strip and how they align with any broader strategy, and the IDF’s code of ethics in warfare.
When setting a strategy, it’s not enough to define the goals of the war. It’s essential to clarify how those goals will be achieved. Every officer trained at Israel’s Bahad 1 military academy learns that a military plan must include three core statements: the objective (what is to be achieved), the mission (what must be done to achieve it), and the method (how the mission will be executed).
It’s unclear whether, at the war’s outset, there was any detailed discussion about how the objectives would be achieved. However, the decision was made to rely on one principle: “military pressure alone” would deliver results. This pressure does achieve one goal – damaging Hamas’ military capabilities – but falls short of addressing the other two: recovering hostages and dismantling Hamas’ rule.
The IDF actively seeks direct engagements, deploying forces to areas with a high concentration of militants. This leads to significant casualties on both sides and allegations of disproportionate harm to civilians, which is a flawed approach. Over a year ago, I argued that the completion of the Netzarim Corridor effectively encircled northern Gaza.
A more effective plan would have involved two clear steps: first, allowing civilians to leave the area and move south; second, tightening the encirclement into a siege against remaining Hamas operatives. Securing nearly a third of Gaza without fighting would have placed unprecedented pressure on Hamas. This aligns with intelligence reports highlighting Hamas’ deep concern over the so-called “generals’ plan.”
This pressure could have been leveraged to negotiate for hostages with a clear ultimatum: If Hamas fails to return living hostages promptly, its leadership will permanently lose control over Gaza City and its surroundings. Unlike civilian casualties, the loss of territory strikes a deep, symbolic blow to Arab leaders.
Instead, the IDF is engaged in intense battles in Jabaliya and other neighborhoods. While tactically successful, these efforts are not advancing the primary objectives of securing the hostages’ return and dismantling Hamas’ governance. At the same time, allegations about the IDF’s ethics in warfare have gained traction.
I have never claimed that the IDF is “the most moral army in the world,” but I can confidently state that its ethical standards are at least on par with Western militaries. This is not mere rhetoric – I’ve researched this topic extensively over the past decade and participated in seminars comparing the IDF’s conduct to that of the U.S., British and Australian forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our analysis, which evaluated 132 parameters, is robust and grounded.
Get the Ynetnews app on your smartphone: Google Play: https://bit.ly/4eJ37pE | Apple App Store: https://bit.ly/3ZL7iNv
Moreover, foreign generals, including NATO chiefs of staff and former defense ministers, who visited Gaza in both 2014 and 2024, have consistently praised the IDF. Accusations of war crimes are therefore baseless.
The only area where former Defense Minister Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon might be correct is in his claim that a covert political agenda in northern Gaza aims to enable the establishment of settlements. However, this criticism falls squarely on the political leadership, not the IDF.