Israel’s chief of staff, identified in local reporting as Zamir, conducted a high-profile inspection of the Rafah sector of Gaza on February 13, meeting commanders from the Southern Command and Gaza Division as fighting continues. In a statement released after the visit, he said the Israel Defense Forces had “destroyed all of Hamas’s frontline combat battalions” and declared the militant group “militarily defeated,” while stressing that Israeli forces remain deployed along what he described as the “Yellow Line.”
Zamir said the IDF is responsible for overseeing border crossings into Gaza and has continued dismantling local militant infrastructure. He warned that the military is prepared to shift from a defensive posture to offensive operations if required and that it will respond to any violations of a ceasefire. He also reiterated the goal of disarming Hamas and demilitarizing Gaza.
The chief of staff announced the recent formation of a new 38th Division, a move he framed as strengthening Israel’s ground-combat capabilities. Creating a fresh divisional command signals an institutional shift toward preparing for sustained or renewed ground operations, even as Israeli leaders assert progress against Hamas’s battlefield capabilities.
The location and timing of the visit are politically sensitive. Rafah sits at Gaza’s southern edge, adjacent to Egypt, and has long been a focal point for humanitarian concerns because of crowded displacement and the presence of border crossings used for aid and evacuations. Any sign that Israeli forces might expand offensive operations there risks heightened civilian harm and renewed international condemnation.
Zamir’s declaration that Hamas has been “militarily defeated” should be read cautiously. Militaries commonly assess battlefield degradation of an enemy’s conventional units, but Hamas retains asymmetric capabilities — including rockets, tunnelling networks and dispersed guerrilla cells — that can sustain low‑intensity but politically potent resistance. The persistence of such threats complicates any short-term claim of decisive victory.
Strategically, the message served multiple audiences. Domestically it reassures Israeli constituencies demanding security and tangible progress. Regionally it signals to Egypt and other neighbors that Israel intends to control the tempo and geography of any next phase. Internationally it calibrates expectations for diplomacy: the combination of boastful rhetoric and the creation of a new division strengthens Israel’s bargaining position while reducing the credibility of ceasefire-only outcomes absent guarantees on disarmament.
The immediate consequence is a higher risk of escalation around Rafah and its humanitarian choke points. Humanitarian agencies that depend on crossings and deconflicted space will face increased uncertainty, and diplomatic partners pushing for a ceasefire may find their leverage diminished if the IDF truly believes it can resume offensive operations at will. That puts pressure on mediators to either secure enforceable guarantees or prepare for a renewed military campaign with major civilian cost.