Last April, during one of his regular cabinet meetings, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confidently declared that Israel was just “a step away from victory.”
At the time, Netanyahu – the same man whose Gaza policy unraveled months earlier, resulting in the unprecedented massacre on October 7 – was still championing his “total victory” campaign. The message to Israelis was clear: Hold on a bit longer, push a bit harder, endure a few more fallen soldiers, and victory will be reached.
Fast forward a year, and this week we heard from Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer, Netanyahu’s closest adviser, that by next year – April 2026 – the war will be over, Israel will have won, and new peace deals will have been signed with Arab states. From being a “step away” in April 2024 to needing somewhere between weeks from now to another full year is quite the shift.
But the truth is, this backpedaling has long been in the cards. Israel entered the war in Gaza without a real plan. It set three broad objectives: restore security to the South, bring the hostages home, and eliminate Hamas.
So far, only one of those goals has been met. A new buffer zone has been created to prevent Hamas from reestablishing border positions or digging cross-border tunnels with the aim of deterring another October 7-style infiltration. That has bought relative security for the southern border communities. But the other two objectives remain frustratingly out of reach.
Fifty-nine hostages – 24 of whom are believed to still be alive – remain in Hamas captivity and, despite concerted global efforts, Israel has yet to formulate a clear, effective way to bring them home.
And then there’s Hamas. Once said to be on the brink of collapse, the group has reportedly replenished its ranks with 30,000 new recruits and continues to launch guerrilla-style attacks against Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip. The idea that it is anywhere close to being “defeated” is, at best, premature.
This raises urgent questions about the current military operations. Yes, applying pressure on Hamas may help create leverage for the negotiations, but if a deal is the end goal, why send more soldiers to be killed in the process?
And if a deal is reached, what happens to Hamas afterward? Who ensures that it is truly removed from power and denied the ability to rearm or plan the next round of violence?
Will a deal include Hamas disarmament? Unlikely. The expulsion of its leaders from Gaza? Also unlikely.
What will post-war governance look like? Who will rebuild Gaza? Who will distribute humanitarian aid, a task IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir has explicitly said he will not take on?
The unfortunate truth is that Israel still lacks a coherent post-war plan, and the reason is more political than strategic. Every rookie military strategist knows that there is no pure military solution to Gaza. If Israel truly wants to achieve something resembling victory, Hamas cannot be left in power. That requires a viable alternative to govern the Strip, oversee reconstruction, and prevent Hamas from reconstituting.
But within Israel’s political leadership, there’s deafening silence on that front.
Netanyahu continues to present the war as a zero-sum game: Either destroy Hamas or keep fighting indefinitely.
He offers no vision, no alternative. And when alternatives are raised, such as bringing in the Palestinian Authority, he immediately shuts them down, this week asking rhetorically: “Why replace one regime sworn to our destruction with another regime sworn to our destruction?”
But is the PA truly “sworn to Israel’s destruction,” as Netanyahu claims?
To be clear: I am not advocating for the PA to be installed in Gaza. It is corrupt, weak, and incapable of standing up to Hamas. But using false arguments when real ones exist is not the way this should be done. After 18 months of war and the loss of hundreds of soldiers, the Israeli public deserves answers.
We deserve to know where this is going.
It’s okay for a leader to say he/she doesn’t have all the answers yet. What’s not okay is to continue selling false hope and unattainable promises. “Total victory” and “a step away from victory” are not strategies. They’re slogans. Real leadership means leveling with the public about what’s possible, what it will cost, and what can realistically be achieved. Weak leadership is playing politics and prioritizing personal survival over national interest.
With that as the backdrop, all eyes now turn to US President Donald Trump and his upcoming visit to the region, which will reportedly include stops in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. Trump’s agenda includes three key items: finalizing major arms and economic deals with Riyadh, advancing Saudi-Israeli normalization, and helping to close a new nuclear deal with Iran.
For the families of the hostages, Trump’s visit carries enormous weight. They’re hoping for a repeat of what happened in January when Trump – just days before retaking office – pressed Netanyahu to accept a deal that allowed for the first stage of hostage releases.
Now, as Trump prepares for his Middle East trip, expectations are again building.
Will he force Israel and Hamas into a broader agreement? One possibility is a comprehensive “everyone for everyone” deal: all hostages for a large number of Palestinian prisoners and an Israeli commitment to a long-term ceasefire. Another scenario is a smaller deal: Perhaps the release of half the surviving hostages in exchange for a limited cessation of hostilities.
Which path will be taken? Ultimately, it may come down to Donald Trump who, in the absence of our own leadership at home, will help decide Israel’s fate. That’s the price of failing to plan – and of governing by slogans instead of strategy.
The writer is co-author of a forthcoming book, While Israel Slept, about the October 7 Hamas attacks and is a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, a global Jewish think tank based in Jerusalem.
