Nournews: The plan to occupy Gaza has been approved even though, after months of bombardment and ground operations, the Israeli army has neither succeeded in eliminating Hamas nor dismantling the resistance’s infrastructure. Army commanders have repeatedly warned in closed-door meetings that forces are suffering from severe fatigue, armored equipment requires urgent repairs, and ammunition stocks are dwindling. Even Herzi Halevi, Chief of Staff of the Tel Aviv army, has admitted that prolonging the war puts the lives of Israeli captives at risk. Nevertheless, in a political maneuver, Netanyahu has ordered an advance toward the full occupation of Gaza instead of halting or reassessing strategy—an action that appears less a military decision than an attempt to cover up battlefield failures and escape domestic pressure.
Ethnic cleansing under the pretext of “security”
According to published reports, implementing this plan will displace more than 900,000 Palestinians from Gaza City to the “Mawasi” area west of Khan Yunis—an area without any prepared humanitarian or medical infrastructure—effectively abandoning tens of thousands of families in uninhabitable conditions. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has condemned this action in the strongest terms, calling it a clear example of war crimes and ethnic cleansing. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has also called for the immediate halt of the plan, warning that continued siege and occupation will push the current humanitarian disaster to the point of no return. In the language of international law, this constitutes a grave crime against humanity and could pave the way for prosecution of Israeli officials in international courts.
Humanitarian crisis and the world’s moral responsibility
Gaza is already under total siege: severe food shortages, the collapse of the healthcare system, the spread of infectious diseases, and the shutdown of essential services are placing the lives of more than two million people in immediate danger. The UN and humanitarian organizations have warned that any occupying operation—even in the short term—will result in the deaths of thousands more civilians. Despite these warnings, Netanyahu claims that after occupation, “humanitarian aid” will only be provided to areas outside the conflict zone—an approach that not only violates the principles of neutrality in aid delivery, but is also clearly designed to pressure civilians into abandoning their homes.
War of attrition and the risk of expanding fronts
At first glance, occupying Gaza may seem like establishing geographic control over the strip, but the reality on the ground tells a different story. The experience of urban warfare in Lebanon and Gaza has shown that resistance can, even under occupation, impose heavy human and economic costs on the occupying army through asymmetric operations. This plan will lead Israel not to greater security but to a multi-front war of attrition. Tensions on the Lebanese border are rising, and any large-scale operation in Gaza could ignite the northern front. As a result, Israel risks being drawn into a conflict stretching from southern Lebanon to the heart of the occupied territories.
Collapse of the political front and global isolation
International reactions to the decision have triggered a wave of condemnation. Belgium has summoned Israel’s ambassador, the Dutch foreign minister has warned that Tel Aviv is on the verge of losing Europe entirely, and the President of the European Council has stated that this decision will seriously affect Brussels–Tel Aviv relations. Saudi Arabia has also issued a strong statement, calling Israel’s occupation policies a sign of disregard for the Palestinian people’s bond with their land. This level of official opposition signals the beginning of Israel’s diplomatic isolation, even among its traditional allies.
No “Day After” Strategy – Gaza becomes a permanent quagmire
The greatest weakness of this plan is the total lack of a vision for Gaza’s future after occupation. Netanyahu claims he does not intend to govern Gaza directly and that the territory will be handed over to “non-threatening” Arab forces—but no country in the region has agreed to take on such responsibility. This strategic vacuum reveals that the occupation is merely a short-term move to project internal strength, not part of a comprehensive security plan. The result will be Israel’s entrapment in a security and political quagmire from which escape will be neither easy nor inexpensive.
Domestic costs and erosion of legitimacy
Inside Israel, opposition is also mounting. Opposition leader Yair Lapid has called the decision a “disaster” and warned that aimless occupation of Gaza is exactly what Hamas wants: to bog Israel down in endless territory with no plan for the future. Such dissent from within Israel’s own political structure reflects the depth of the rift and the crisis of confidence in its leadership. Continuing down this path could lead to widespread social protests, declining trust in the army, and erosion of the regime’s social capital.
NOURNEWS