Israel’s Strategic Plans to Assume Control of Gaza: Implications and Global Reactions
Comprehensive analysis of Israel’s strategic plans to control Gaza, examining historical context, international reactions, humanitarian impact, legal implications, and future scenarios for regional stability.
Israel's Strategic Plans to Assume Control of Gaza
🕒 10 min read
Israel’s Strategic Plans to Assume Control of Gaza: Israel’s security cabinet has unanimously approved a plan to expand military operations in Gaza to the ‘capture’ and holding of strategic locations. This marks a significant change in Israel’s operational policy concerning the Palestinian enclave. In this context, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made clear that Israeli forces “will not enter and come out” but will remain in occupied zones. This detailed examination is devoted to international responses regarding humanitarian implications, historical background, and possible future developments as Israel seems poised to impose more stringent control over Gaza.
Recent Developments in Israel’s Gaza Policy
Israel’s security cabinet meeting to discuss expanded military operations in Gaza, May 2025.
Israel’s security cabinet recently approved a military plan titled “Gideon’s Chariots” that includes capturing and holding Gaza territory indefinitely. This represents a dramatic shift from Israel’s previous approach of limited incursions followed by withdrawal. According to Israeli officials, the plan involves relocating Gaza’s 2.1 million residents southward “for their protection” while establishing Israeli control over evacuated areas.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich stated explicitly that “we are finally going to conquer the Gaza Strip,” suggesting potential long-term occupation or even annexation. Military officials have begun mobilizing tens of thousands of reservists to support this expanded operation, which is expected to commence after US President Donald Trump’s scheduled visit to the Middle East in mid-May.
The plan also includes a controversial new mechanism for humanitarian aid delivery that would bypass Hamas and utilize private companies. This approach has been rejected by the United Nations and other aid organizations as violating humanitarian principles and potentially weaponizing aid distribution as part of a military strategy.
Historical Context of Israel-Gaza Relations
Israel occupied Gaza during the 1967 Middle East War and maintained a military presence there for nearly four decades. In 2005, under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel implemented a unilateral disengagement plan, withdrawing all Israeli settlers and military personnel from Gaza. However, Israel retained control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, and territorial waters, leading the United Nations to continue classifying Gaza as occupied territory under international law.
Following Hamas’s victory in the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections and subsequent takeover of Gaza in 2007, Israel imposed a strict blockade on the territory, severely restricting the movement of people and goods. This blockade, along with periodic military operations, has defined Israel’s approach to Gaza for nearly two decades.
| Aspect | 2005 Disengagement | Current Strategy (2025) |
| Military Presence | Complete withdrawal of troops | Long-term military occupation |
| Civilian Settlements | Evacuation of all Israeli settlers | Potential security buffer zones |
| Border Control | External control maintained | Complete control of borders |
| Palestinian Movement | Restricted but possible | Forced relocation to southern Gaza |
| Humanitarian Aid | Controlled through crossings | Private distribution bypassing Hamas |
The current strategy represents a significant departure from the 2005 disengagement, with Israel now planning to establish a long-term military presence inside Gaza rather than controlling it from the outside. This shift comes after years of intermittent conflict, including major military operations in 2008-2009, 2012, 2014, and the current conflict that began in October 2023.
International Reactions to Israel’s Gaza Control Plans
United Nations Security Council meeting discussing Israel’s plans for Gaza, May 2025.
The international community has responded with varying degrees of concern to Israel’s plans to capture and hold Gaza territory. The United Nations Secretary-General expressed alarm, warning that expanded military operations would lead to more civilian casualties and suffering. UN humanitarian agencies have rejected Israel’s proposed aid distribution mechanism, stating it “contravenes fundamental humanitarian principles and appears designed to reinforce control over life-sustaining items as a pressure tactic.”
United States Response
The United States has maintained its support for Israel while expressing concern about the humanitarian situation. When asked about Israel’s expansion plans, President Donald Trump reiterated his commitment to helping deliver food aid to Palestinians in Gaza but did not directly address the military aspects of the plan. The timing of the operation, scheduled to begin after Trump’s Middle East visit, suggests coordination with or at least consideration of U.S. diplomatic priorities.
European Union Position
The European Union has urged restraint, expressing concern about “further casualties and suffering for the Palestinian population.” The United Kingdom explicitly stated it “does not support an expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza.” Many European nations have emphasized the need for a negotiated solution that addresses both security concerns and humanitarian needs.
Arab League emergency meeting responding to Israel’s Gaza control plans.
Arab nations have universally condemned Israel’s plans, with the Arab League calling for emergency meetings to coordinate a response. Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have expressed particular concern, given their roles in regional stability and, in Egypt’s case, its shared border with Gaza. These nations have warned that expanded Israeli control over Gaza could further destabilize the region and complicate efforts toward a two-state solution.
International human rights organizations have raised alarms about the forced displacement of Gaza’s population, with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch characterizing such actions as potential war crimes under international law. These organizations have called for immediate international intervention to prevent mass displacement and protect civilian populations.
Humanitarian Impact on Gaza’s Population
Displaced Palestinians in southern Gaza waiting for humanitarian aid distribution.
The humanitarian situation in Gaza has reached catastrophic levels after months of conflict and a complete blockade of aid that began in early March. According to the Palestinian Ministry of Health, over 52,000 people have been killed since October 2023, with more than 2,400 deaths occurring since mid-March when Israel resumed its offensive after a temporary ceasefire.
The United Nations reports that more than 90% of Gaza’s 2.1 million residents have been displaced, many multiple times. Israel’s plan to relocate the population southward would constitute yet another forced displacement for a population already experiencing severe trauma and hardship. Palestinians interviewed by international media have expressed strong opposition to further displacement, with many stating they would rather remain in their homes despite the dangers.
“In October 2023, I evacuated with my children, daughters, and grandchildren – about 60 people in total. We lived through unbearable conditions in what Israel claimed was a ‘safe zone’ in the south. This time, we will not leave, even if Israel brings down the tents over our heads.”
The two-month blockade of humanitarian aid has emptied warehouses, shut down bakeries, and left community kitchens days away from running out of supplies. The UN warns that Gaza’s population faces severe food shortages and increasing risk of famine. Essential medicines, vaccines, and medical equipment are also critically lacking, further straining Gaza’s overwhelmed healthcare system.
Map showing humanitarian conditions across different regions of Gaza, May 2025.
Israel’s proposed aid distribution mechanism, which would use private companies and bypass Hamas, has been rejected by humanitarian organizations as potentially endangering civilians by forcing them into militarized zones to collect rations. Aid agencies argue this approach violates humanitarian principles of neutrality and impartiality while potentially putting aid workers at risk.
Legal Implications Under International Law
The International Criminal Court in The Hague, where investigations into the Gaza conflict are ongoing.
Israel’s plans to capture and hold Gaza territory raise significant questions under international law. Despite Israel’s unilateral withdrawal in 2005, the United Nations still considers Gaza occupied territory because Israel maintained control over borders, airspace, and territorial waters. A renewed physical occupation would strengthen this legal classification and trigger additional obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the protection of civilian populations.
The forced relocation of Gaza’s population, even if characterized as being “for their protection,” potentially violates multiple provisions of international humanitarian law. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits forcible transfers and deportations of protected persons from occupied territory, regardless of motive. The International Criminal Court (ICC) classifies such actions as potential crimes against humanity and war crimes.
Key Legal Concerns: Israel’s plans raise questions about forced population transfer, collective punishment through aid restrictions, proportionality of military operations, and obligations of an occupying power under international humanitarian law.
The ICC has already opened investigations into alleged war crimes committed in Palestinian territories, including Gaza. The court’s prosecutor has indicated that new developments, including forced displacement and humanitarian blockades, fall within the scope of ongoing investigations. This creates potential legal exposure for Israeli officials involved in planning and executing these operations.
Israel maintains that its actions comply with international law and are necessary security measures to protect its citizens from Hamas, which it designates as a terrorist organization. Israeli officials argue that Hamas’s use of civilian infrastructure for military purposes complicates the application of international humanitarian law in this context.
Future Scenarios and Regional Stability
Analysis of potential future scenarios for Gaza governance and regional stability.
Israel’s plans to capture and hold Gaza territory indefinitely raise critical questions about long-term governance and regional stability. Several potential scenarios emerge, each with significant implications for Israelis, Palestinians, and the broader Middle East.
Scenario 1: Extended Israeli Military Control
Israel could maintain direct military control over Gaza for an extended period, potentially years. This would require significant military resources and expose Israeli forces to ongoing security threats. It would likely face sustained international opposition and potentially increase radicalization among Palestinians. The economic costs would be substantial, both in military expenditures and in managing civilian infrastructure.
Scenario 2: International Administration
Following military operations, Gaza could transition to some form of international administration, potentially involving Arab states, the United Nations, or a coalition of willing partners. This would require Israeli cooperation and international consensus, both challenging to achieve. Such an arrangement could provide stability while building governance capacity, but would face legitimacy challenges among Palestinians.
Scenario 3: Palestinian Authority Return
Israel could attempt to facilitate the return of the Palestinian Authority to Gaza after removing Hamas from power. This approach aligns with some international preferences but faces significant implementation challenges, including the PA’s limited capacity and questionable legitimacy among Gazans. It would require substantial international support and security guarantees.
Each scenario presents complex challenges for regional stability. Extended Israeli control of Gaza would likely inflame tensions throughout the Middle East, potentially drawing in other actors and complicating Israel’s normalization efforts with Arab states. The Abraham Accords process could stall or reverse if Arab populations pressure their governments to distance themselves from Israel.
Regional impact analysis: How Israel’s Gaza control affects neighboring countries.
The humanitarian situation will remain a critical factor in any scenario. Addressing the needs of Gaza’s population while maintaining security will require innovative approaches and significant resources. The international community’s willingness to provide financial support will depend partly on governance arrangements and humanitarian access.
Ultimately, Israel’s plans for Gaza represent a significant strategic shift with far-reaching implications. The success of any approach will depend on balancing security concerns with humanitarian needs and long-term political considerations. The coming months will be crucial in determining which path emerges and how it shapes the future of Israeli-Palestinian relations.
Conclusion: Navigating Complex Realities
Aerial view of Gaza, the territory at the center of control discussions.
Israel’s plans to capture and hold Gaza territory mark a significant turning point in the decades-long conflict. This approach represents a departure from previous strategies and raises profound questions about the future of Gaza and its population. The humanitarian consequences are immediate and severe, while the legal and diplomatic implications will unfold over months and years.
As Israel prepares to implement this expanded military operation, the international community faces difficult choices about how to respond. Balancing security concerns with humanitarian imperatives remains challenging, particularly given the complex history and competing narratives surrounding Gaza. What happens in the coming months will shape not only Israeli-Palestinian relations but potentially the broader geopolitical landscape of the Middle East.
The situation demands close monitoring and thoughtful analysis as events continue to unfold. The perspectives of all stakeholders—Israelis, Palestinians, regional actors, and the international community—must be considered in seeking sustainable solutions to this enduring conflict.
