On the morning of Friday, August 8, Israel’s Security Cabinet approved a plan to establish control over the city of Gaza. This was reported by Reuters.
“The Israel Defense Forces will prepare to establish control over the city of Gaza, while at the same time providing humanitarian aid to the civilian population outside the combat zones,” the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement.
As Israeli political analyst Zeev Khanin told News.Az, the government’s decision to establish control over Gaza was expected — almost no one doubted it. It is not about occupation; at least, the authorities deliberately avoid using this term, preferring to speak of control over the sector. Moreover, what is meant is full control over the entire territory of Gaza, not just a security zone, which is, in general, supported by the majority. However, a split in society is already evident.
Far from all Israelis — not only the opposition but also representatives of civil society — consider this decision productive. Even if Hamas’s military infrastructure is completely destroyed, many believe this would lead to a protracted guerrilla war with small terrorist groups. There is doubt as to whether this corresponds to Israel’s long-term national security interests.
Another important issue is how this decision will be implemented. The army’s command, to put it mildly, is not enthusiastic about the idea. It is clear that in Israel the commander-in-chief is the government in the form of the security cabinet, in practice the prime minister and his close circle. The army will, of course, carry out orders, but its professional assessment of the prospects is not always positive. At the same time, international pressure on this initiative is growing.
There is also a question about the logic of these actions: if the goal is the comprehensive destruction of Hamas, how can it be explained that Israel itself supplies and encourages other states to increase humanitarian aid to the sector? In practice, Hamas seizes these resources, controls their distribution, and uses them to strengthen its influence, including recruiting new fighters. Moreover, aid often goes through UN structures, which, according to critics, have effectively become part of the civilian governance system of the terrorist organization.
A particularly sensitive issue is the fate of Israeli hostages. A large-scale operation to establish full control over Gaza could result in the death of those still alive and the disappearance of those whose fate is already unknown. This creates a complex diplomatic and military-political dilemma, to which there is no clear answer.
Thus, we see an internal contradiction: on the one hand, there is a declaration of full control over the sector; on the other, a refusal to occupy or annex Gaza. Annexation would mean the return of Jewish settlements, which were evacuated in 2005 as part of Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, initiated by the then-leader of the Likud party — the same party currently in power.
In Israeli society, there is no single approach to this issue. As is often the case in such situations, foreign and domestic political factors play a greater role than purely operational considerations. For now, it remains to be seen how events will unfold.
