The troop transport rattled along, its steel hull a drumbeat against the earth. Inside, the faces of the Israeli soldiers were a mix of fatigue and forced bravado. The news had spread through their ranks like a shockwave: the security cabinet had approved a plan to take control of Gaza City. The military, the IDF, had already named the offensive “Gideon’s Chariots B” and authorized the call-up of some 60,000 reservists. A sense of a decisive, and perhaps final, push hung in the air.
“Are we going to be the first to reach Gaza City?” one soldier, fresh-faced and eager, asked, his voice cutting through the quiet tension.
An older, grizzled veteran sitting opposite him grunted. “If you’re still alive by then.”
The grim humor was lost on no one. The new offensive was met with a chorus of opposition, both internationally and at home. UN officials warned of “catastrophic consequences” for civilians, while UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer called it a “huge mistake.” Even within Israel, the families of the remaining hostages—believed to be about 20 of the 50 still held by Hamas—feared the operation would seal their loved ones’ fates.
A third soldier, a medic, broke the silence, his tone contemplative. “Our country doesn’t allow nuclear armaments, and I think that’s why Hamas looks down on us.”
“That’s true,” the older soldier conceded. “Without a decisive deterrent, we can’t resolve even a regional conflict.”
The conversation shifted to the complexities of the battlefield. The plan had five objectives: disarming Hamas, returning all hostages, demilitarizing the Gaza Strip, taking security control, and establishing a new civil administration. But the soldiers knew the reality on the ground was far messier. The plan, they understood, was more about politics than military strategy. The support of far-right ministers like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who had threatened to quit if a ceasefire was agreed, was crucial for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government. This dependency, many felt, was steering the conflict away from a negotiated end.
“Well, even if we had nuclear weapons, they wouldn’t be much use,” the medic continued. “Hamas operates in a dispersed manner, so we’d have no choice but to wipe them out thoroughly.”
“I get the feeling Hamas knows our training well,” the younger soldier chimed in, a note of suspicion entering his voice. “Maybe someone is leaking information about the Israeli military to Hamas.”
The idea was disturbing, a betrayal from within. The older soldier’s eyes narrowed. “So, are our real enemies among our own allies? That’s a bad joke.”
The truck hit a bump, jarring them back to the present. The journey to the front was a descent into an operation that was being criticized as reckless and perilous. The soldiers were heading into an urban battlefield where even the most basic humanitarian needs were in a state of “apocalyptic reality,” as one aid worker had put it. With Hamas having accepted a new ceasefire proposal—a proposal Israel had yet to formally respond to—the question loomed large in their minds: were they about to engage in a battle that could have been avoided? The lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians and the remaining hostages were on the line, caught between the military’s strategic ambitions and the tangled web of political maneuverings. As the transport rolled closer, the soldiers were left to face the consequences of a decision made not by generals, but by a cabinet in Jerusalem, a decision that would define their future, and the future of Gaza itself.
All names of people and organizations appearing in this story are pseudonyms
Israel approves plan to take control of Gaza City, signalling major escalation
Comments