By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent interview, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, accusing him of weakness and appeasement towards terror groups, further straining the relationship between the two countries. Netanyahu also vowed to proceed with plans to militarily control all of Gaza, even if Hamas agreed to a ceasefire and hostage release deal. He framed Gaza City as Hamas’s last stronghold, similar to the Allies needing to conquer Berlin during WWII. Furthermore, Netanyahu linked the increasing antisemitic incidents in Australia to anti-Western extremists and urged Australians to confront this issue.
Read the original article here
Netanyahu: Israel will conquer Gaza regardless of whether Hamas accepts a hostage deal, according to this perspective, boils down to a single, chilling statement: the fate of Gaza is sealed, and the hostages’ lives are now, tragically, collateral damage. This point of view cuts through the complex web of negotiations and political maneuvering, painting a stark picture of a predetermined outcome. The core belief is that the focus has shifted from securing the hostages’ release to achieving complete territorial control. The perceived lack of incentive for Hamas to negotiate, if conquest is the ultimate goal, leads to the unfortunate conclusion that the remaining hostages are essentially condemned to death.
It’s almost as if the hostage situation, however tragic, was a convenient factor in a larger plan. The assertion is that the true objective wasn’t, and perhaps never was, the safe return of the hostages, but something far more ambitious: the complete military control of Gaza. If this is indeed the case, it implies a fundamental distrust of Hamas and a conviction that their elimination is the only acceptable outcome. This perspective frames Hamas as an existential threat, justifying the perceived need for a complete takeover.
The language used, specifically the declaration of “conquer,” is central to this narrative. It dismisses any pretense of proportionality or concern for civilian casualties, suggesting a willingness to accept significant loss of life to achieve the military and strategic goals. The use of the word “conquer” signals an uncompromising stance and a commitment to total victory. It’s seen as a direct acknowledgement of the military strategy in place.
The implication is that the opportunity for a negotiated solution is over. There is no consideration of the possibility of a negotiated settlement. In this view, any deal that leaves Hamas in power, or allows for the emergence of other militant groups in Gaza, is unacceptable. Thus, the emphasis shifts from hostage negotiations to the necessity of military occupation. The argument is that the end goal is not simply to neutralize Hamas, but to establish complete control over the territory.
Given this perspective, Hamas has little reason to negotiate. The absence of a deal that keeps Hamas in power or even another Jihadist terror organization means that if the goal is to “conquer”, the remaining hostages are essentially expendable. The only option for Hamas, within this context, would be unconditional surrender.
A counter-argument would be that if Hamas were to accept a deal, that doesn’t necessarily entail Israel pulling out and leaving a power vacuum. An end to the war would be possible, the conflict ending not because of a power grab but because the objectives had been satisfied. However, this perspective argues, even in that situation, complete withdrawal is not an option. It would depend on the specific details of any agreement, but it also suggests a more comprehensive plan for the future of Gaza.
The core of this viewpoint is that the current situation is the result of a long-term strategy and a determination to control Gaza. The belief is that the focus on the hostages was a strategic element. It’s now, according to this point of view, a foregone conclusion, and it’s the culmination of a plan that has been in the making for some time.