The Religious Zionist Coup Against the Chief of Staff: A Debate Between Permanent Occupation of Gaza and a Negotiation Tactic
Ameer Makhoul, Progress Center for Policies
Policy Brief:
Introduction:
In the Israeli Security Cabinet meeting on April 22, Religious Zionism Party leader and Minister Bezalel Smotrich threatened to remove the Chief of Staff and replace him with someone who would implement the government’s policies in Gaza. Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir stated, “There will be no starvation policy in Gaza. All steps must be taken to prevent aid from reaching Hamas, but the army will not distribute food to Palestinians.” Zamir also emphasized the military’s position that “a lot needs to be done before launching a full-scale ground invasion, which would require several military divisions (tens of thousands of soldiers).” Later, Smotrich clarified that his criticism was actually directed at Netanyahu for hesitating to declare a full occupation of the Gaza Strip. Official data indicates that up to half of Israeli reservists are refusing to report for duty. Meanwhile, the United Torah Judaism party (7 seats), backed by rabbinical rulings, has threatened to topple the government if any yeshiva student is arrested for refusing military service. Much of the debate centers around the denial of aid access to Palestinians in Gaza for nearly two months.
Details:
Smotrich, who holds key positions as Finance Minister and Minister in the Defense Ministry responsible for the Civil Administration and settlements, continues to apply maximum pressure to impose his extremist agenda toward Palestinians. His party risks collapse in the upcoming elections, according to polls, prompting him—like Netanyahu—to cling to power through the gateway of an ideologically and politically driven “open war.”
Just weeks ago, Smotrich and National Security Minister Ben Gvir praised Eyal Zamir as a “victorious commander,” with “victory” defined as ideological loyalty to the far-right government, in contrast to his predecessor Herzi Halevi, who faced relentless delegitimization by Netanyahu and allies after the October 7 events. Now, Smotrich has turned on Zamir, threatening to replace him unless he enforces a starvation policy on Gaza and takes military control over humanitarian aid distribution.
Zamir’s statements reflect the military’s rejection of direct military governance in Gaza. After the disputes in the Cabinet meeting, Netanyahu concluded the session without a resolution, promising a vote in an upcoming meeting. Smotrich’s threats to topple the government over Gaza occupation are no longer taken seriously due to their repetitive nature—he is seen as reliant on remaining in the coalition for his political survival.
Netanyahu has recently toned down provocative rhetoric regarding the hostage deal, Iran’s nuclear file, and peaceful Saudi nuclear ambitions, as well as Syria—trying to present himself as a “balanced leader” ahead of Donald Trump’s planned visits to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and potentially Turkey.
Netanyahu’s main concern is that Trump’s regional visit may yield outcomes beyond his control, risking the collapse of his governing coalition.
Observers note two distinct approaches within the Israeli Cabinet:
One led by Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, views intensified war and permanent occupation of parts of Gaza as a way to bypass the next phase of the hostage deal and avoid ending the war. They believe only overwhelming force can coerce Hamas into accepting Israeli terms and disappearing from the scene.
The other, led by Smotrich, Ben Gvir, and senior Likud ministers including acting Prime Minister and Justice Minister Yariv Levin, advocates for continuing the war as a goal in itself—pushing toward full control over Gaza and eventual population displacement.
Meanwhile, a clear conflict is emerging between Religious Zionism and the ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) camp. Smotrich believes the Haredi parties, especially United Torah Judaism, are declining and nearing irrelevance. But United Torah Judaism is threatening to bring down the government.
The conflict between the two camps revolves around two main issues: the military conscription law for Haredim, which the Supreme Court has ordered to enforce, and the hostage deal, which Haredi parties prioritize due to the religious principle of redeeming captives. This internal tension could jeopardize coalition stability.
The U.S. administration’s stance prioritizes the hostage deal and an end to the war, although no deadline has been set.
Conclusion:
The internal disputes within the Israeli leadership reflect a state of strategic confusion regarding Gaza and its future. Continued warfare is being used as an alternative to a strategic exit, making it increasingly destructive for Palestinians and transforming the situation into a sustainable occupation.
The public confrontation in the Cabinet between Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and ministers from Likud and Religious Zionism highlights growing military dissent and strengthens the families of hostages. This is also reflected in an emerging movement among Israeli officers advocating for a deal and an end to the war, seeing the conflict as “political and personal.”
Smotrich’s campaign appears to be a fight for his and his party’s political survival, with internal dissent against his confrontational approach growing among the broader Jewish-Israeli public.
The Haredi opposition to conscription and their threats to dismantle the government—especially after securing their demands in the state budget passed in late March—pose a real challenge. Netanyahu is expected to maneuver carefully here, knowing many of those threatening to collapse the government will likely settle for disrupting its functionality instead.
Across the ruling political spectrum and even within the opposition, there is little concern about the major war crimes being committed against Palestinians in Gaza. A shift in Israeli policy appears unlikely unless a firm U.S. position forces Tel Aviv to act.
