They’ve run the Mossad. They’ve headed the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency). They’ve commanded the IDF and led the ministries through war and peace alike. And now, they’re speaking out against the continuation of Israel’s military campaign against Hamas in Gaza.
On Sunday, Israel’s most seasoned security veterans, including former Mossad chief Tamir Pardo, ex-Shin Bet director Ami Ayalon, and former deputy IDF chief Matan Vilnai, sent a letter not to the cabinet, but to US President Donald Trump. Their plea was that he use his influence to compel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end the war.
The message, delivered on behalf of Commanders for Israel’s Security (CIS), a group now comprising over 600 retired generals, intelligence officials, police chiefs, and diplomats, was unambiguous. The war, in their professional judgment, has outlived its military logic.
“You did it in Lebanon,” they wrote to Trump. “Time to do it in Gaza as well.” But why should we listen to former security officials?
It is easy to dismiss the chorus of retired generals and spy chiefs as yesterday’s men with today’s grudges. And some do, especially in a political climate where criticism of the government is often reduced to “leftist sabotage” or political opportunism.
But such dismissals ignore the sheer weight of what these figures represent. As CIS’s latest video campaign noted:
“Each of these people sat in cabinet meetings, operated in the inner circles, attended all the most sensitive decision-making processes. Together, they have more than a thousand years’ experience in national security and diplomacy.”
However, we are not talking about young activists reading headlines, or foreign-based religious authorities commenting from a place of well-intentioned impracticality. These are the people who have written the security playbook Israel is still using.
When they say Hamas has been dismantled militarily, it’s because they know what that looks like operationally. When they warn that the hostage window is closing, it’s because they’ve negotiated with terror groups, rescued captives, and weighed risks under fire.
Critics of CIS and similar voices are quick to accuse them of undermining Israel’s morale, emboldening its enemies, or acting on behalf of political agendas. The label of anti-patriotism has become a convenient cudgel and is used to delegitimize anyone who suggests that endless war is not the only form of loyalty.
But if patriotism means service, sacrifice, and a lifelong commitment to Israel’s security, then these men and women are still its embodiment.
They have commanded troops, fought on front lines, coordinated life-saving intelligence operations, and led negotiations that have brought soldiers and civilians home. Their careers are testimonies to the Zionist dream in action.
To suggest that their current views are somehow unpatriotic is a dangerous rejection of the very concept of principled dissent in a democracy. One can love Israel deeply and still question its direction. In fact, it is often those who love it most who dare to speak up when they believe it has lost its way.
Politics or patriotism?
OF COURSE, experience is not purity. Many of these officials have political views. Some have political ambitions or have had them in the past. Ehud Barak is one of them, Moshe Ya’alon another. Ami Ayalon once ran for leadership of the Labor Party. It is legitimate to ask whether such voices are colored by ideology or vengeance against Netanyahu.
But that same skepticism must be tempered by what these officials are not doing: they’re not calling for surrender, or for a Palestinian state tomorrow. They’re calling for a strategy, a shift from military attrition to diplomatic action; from endless war to measurable outcomes.
And unlike many armchair critics, they’re backing up their claims with plans.
The CIS letter calls not just for a ceasefire, but for Israel to accept a regional framework brokered by Egypt, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, with a reformed Palestinian Authority managing Gaza’s future – not Hamas.
It insists on the release of all hostages as a precondition to ending the war. It does not suggest abandoning deterrence or ignoring terror. It simply acknowledges that military tools have limits – and that time is running out.
“Our experience tells us Israel has all it takes to deal with residual Hamas capabilities remotely or otherwise,” they wrote. “Chasing remaining senior Hamas operatives can be done later. Our hostages can’t wait.”
The problem, as CIS and many observers note, is not that Israel lacks a path to exit the war; it’s that the government may lack the political will to take it.
Netanyahu has so far rejected the very framework CIS is advocating. He has refused to consider any role for the PA in Gaza, regardless of reforms. He continues to rely on coalition partners who believe Gaza should be conquered and resettled, making any deal that preserves Palestinian presence a political liability. He is also currently exploring options to expand the military operation so that the IDF holds all of the coastal area under its control.
The prime minister has also refused support from opposition parties offering to stabilize his government if he breaks from the hard Right to strike a deal. That decision, say critics, reflects not strategy but survival.
Trump sends mixed signals, his voice still holds sway
Meanwhile, Trump, whose voice still holds sway in much of Israeli society, has offered mixed signals, recently offering apparent criticism for Israel’s role in the humanitarian crisis while stopping short of pushing for a ceasefire. Whether he will respond to the CIS appeal remains to be seen.
The argument here is not that every retired general should dictate policy, or that all former security officials are beyond reproach. These men helped build the very systems that have failed in parts of this war, particularly on October 7, 2023.
But there is a difference between listening and agreeing, and dismissing and ignoring.
When a single voice speaks, it’s politics. When 600 former senior officials speak in unison, many of whom spent their lives protecting Israel from existential threats, it should not be so easily waved away.
Experience does not equal infallibility, but it is hard-earned. And when it calls for a course correction in war, even the most stubborn of leaders should at least pause and ask: what if they’re right?