The Israeli government’s decision to prepare for the military takeover of Gaza looks less a strategy than a risky gamble with very little chance of success. The fact that the move is opposed by the very institution expected to carry it out raises serious legal and ethical concerns and has already alienated key allies.
Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, the IDF’s chief of staff, has made no secret of his misgivings. After nearly two years of grinding war, he has warned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the exhaustion of reservists and the dangers to the remaining hostages held by Hamas.
ALSO READ | In major shift, Germany ends arms exports to Israel amid Netanyahu's Gaza takeover plan
The IDF prefers a ceasefire over yet another campaign. The reported plan, which would deploy five divisions for up to six months, assumes the army can achieve in a short period what it has failed to do in years: decisively defeat Hamas.
History offers no comfort. The United States discovered in Iraq and Afghanistan that military occupations in hostile territory bleed resources, inflame resentment and breed insurgencies. Even now, with 75 per cent of Gaza under Israeli control, Hamas fighters have returned to areas supposedly cleared. Some reports indicate that Hamas is even attracting fresh recruits.
The humanitarian implications are alarming. Gaza is already on the brink of famine, its infrastructure shattered. Large-scale evacuations from Gaza City would almost certainly be seen as collective punishment, potentially breaching international law. The optics—with families driven from tents and ruins under the watch of an occupying army—would deepen Israel’s isolation and erode what remains of its moral standing.
ALSO READ | Israeli security cabinet clears Netanyahu’s Gaza takeover plan
Foreign governments are already pushing back. Britain, Germany, Italy, Australia and New Zealand have warned that a new offensive will aggravate the catastrophe, endanger hostages and trigger further mass displacement. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has urged Israel to reconsider, and Berlin has frozen military exports linked to Gaza operations. The United Nations Security Council has scheduled an emergency meeting.
Israel’s far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, stripped away any pretence, declaring: “We are erasing the Palestinian state.”
Such rhetoric hardens international opposition and makes it all but impossible to secure Arab participation in any postwar administration, particularly given the cabinet’s refusal to involve the Palestinian Authority. Without a credible plan for governance, military conquest would be an open-ended burden.
The financial costs are staggering. Military economist Ram Aminach estimates that maintaining full control over Gaza could cost $6 billion in the coming months, not including the “incomprehensible” expense of sustaining two million people in a devastated territory. With Israel’s economy already strained by conflicts on multiple fronts, the prospect of underwriting an occupation indefinitely is reckless.
ALSO READ | Hamas rejects disarmament amid ceasefire talks, slams US envoy's Gaza visit
Netanyahu’s shifting language only adds to the confusion. On Fox News, he promised full control of Gaza a few days ago. But in an official statement he stopped short, framing the operation as limited. Such ambiguity fuels suspicion that this is less about security than political manoeuvring, intended either to project resolve to domestic audiences or to gain leverage in ceasefire talks.
Whatever the motive, the risks are clear. An overstretched army could be dragged into a prolonged urban insurgency, civilians will suffer the most, and Israel’s global standing will erode further. The plan does not guarantee the defeat of Hamas, the safe return of hostages or the emergence of a stable Gaza. It guarantees only more death, debt and destruction.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of THE WEEK.