By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Prime Minister Netanyahu has reportedly ordered the Israeli military to seize control of 70% of Gaza, intensifying operations despite an existing ceasefire. This directive aims to increase Israeli control from the current 60% to 70%, squeezing Hamas from all sides. The transition to the second phase of the ceasefire, intended for Hamas disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal, has been stalled for months amid ongoing violence and mutual accusations of truce violations. Meanwhile, Israel continues to target Hamas leadership, recently announcing the killing of the new head of Hamas’s armed wing.
Read the original article here
The notion of Netanyahu ordering the Israeli army to take control of 70% of Gaza presents a significant escalation and a complex shift in the ongoing conflict. While initial reports and discussions around this order are met with skepticism, particularly concerning the sensationalized nature of some news outlets, the underlying implications warrant careful consideration. It’s essential to approach such claims with a critical eye, as the context and motivations behind such a directive are multifaceted and deeply intertwined with the dynamics of the region.
The concept of “permanent control” is a crucial distinction that seems to be lost in some of the discourse. Reports suggest this is not about establishing a long-term occupation in the traditional sense, but rather a strategic move aimed at achieving specific military and security objectives. However, the very act of expanding territorial control, even if temporary, raises significant questions about the future governance of Gaza and the potential for renewed conflict.
A key element often overlooked in the conversation is Hamas’s ongoing stance. The premise that Hamas has not surrendered or agreed to a comprehensive ceasefire means that the conflict, from their perspective, continues. This refusal to disarm or relinquish control creates a perpetual state of war, a scenario that inevitably leads to further confrontation and the Israeli military taking more assertive actions. The repeated assertion that Hamas is still at war and actively rearming underscores the difficulty in achieving lasting peace when one party remains committed to armed struggle.
The human cost of this protracted conflict is a constant and devastating consequence. While specific casualty figures from Gaza’s health ministry, which operates under Hamas authority and are generally considered reliable by entities like the United Nations, paint a grim picture of losses, it’s important to acknowledge the context. The assertion that Israel has killed a significant number of people since the ceasefire, even an unofficial one, highlights the persistent violence. The argument presented is that Hamas’s unwavering commitment to fighting until the last militant, man, woman, and child, ensures that Gaza will never see peace as long as they are in charge.
The potential for Gaza to rebuild and find peace hinges on a fundamental shift within its leadership. The possibility of Hamas surrendering, accepting a ceasefire, and allowing for new governance in collaboration with the UN, which would commit to not attacking Israel, is frequently discussed as a path forward. The refusal of Hamas to embrace this avenue is seen as the primary obstacle to Gaza’s recovery and stability, with the devastating consequences of ongoing conflict falling disproportionately on its population.
The broader regional response, or lack thereof, from other Arab nations is also a significant indicator of the complex political landscape. The fact that Egypt, a bordering nation with a direct stake in regional stability and a long-standing peace agreement with Israel, has remained silent on this matter is telling. This silence suggests that even neighboring countries view Hamas as a problem that warrants a strong Israeli response. Outside of Iran and the IRGC, there appears to be little active support for Hamas among other Muslim countries, who are largely observing from the sidelines. This detachment implies a widespread understanding, if not public support, for Israel’s actions, even amid the destruction in Gaza.
The history of Hamas leadership losses, with numerous leaders being eliminated by Israel and replaced, demonstrates their resilience and the deep-rooted nature of the organization. This cycle of elimination and replacement reinforces the argument that Hamas will continue its fight, inevitably dragging Gaza down with them. The persistent question remains: when will Hamas finally yield?
From a military perspective, the IDF’s current control over a significant portion of Gaza, estimated at 50-60%, provides context for the reported order to expand to 70%. This expansion would likely involve pushing frontlines and establishing buffer zones, which are standard military maneuvers. However, the idea of Israel taking 100% control of Gaza is largely considered unrealistic. The immense long-term resources and manpower required for such an undertaking, especially with ongoing operations along the Lebanon border, make it an improbable scenario.
The rhetoric surrounding the future of Gaza is often bleak, with dark humor surfacing about luxury developments and the grim reality of rebuilding on the devastation. Some comments suggest a cynical view, where even the prospect of a Trump Tower in Gaza, built on the suffering of its people, is considered a lesser evil compared to the ongoing Hamas governance. This extreme sentiment reflects a deep frustration and despair surrounding the seemingly intractable nature of the conflict.
The argument that a ceasefire was predicated on Hamas disarming, and their refusal to do so, directly links to the justification for increased Israeli military action. If the initial conditions of a ceasefire are not met, it logically leads to the conclusion that the conflict will resume, with Israel applying further pressure to achieve its objectives, which now reportedly include greater territorial control.
The lack of enthusiasm from Arab states to manage Palestine, or to be seen as cooperating with Israel on such a venture, is another recurring theme. Their criticism of Israel is often seen as a way to gain political capital, particularly in relation to Iran’s objectives, which revolve around the complete destruction of Israel. This regional dynamic makes any unified Arab governance of Palestine highly unlikely, regardless of the circumstances.
The idea that certain plans for Gaza’s future would not allow for Israeli settlements, as allegedly planned by figures like Katz, suggests a divergence of interests and a potential exacerbation of the conflict. The assessment that current leadership in both Gaza and Israel are religious extremists serves as a grim prognosis for any peaceful resolution.
The tragic reality of children being caught in the crossfire is a recurring and heartbreaking aspect of the discussions. The cynical remarks about children yearning for walls or being incorporated into them, while laced with sarcasm, underscore the immense trauma and destruction inflicted upon the youngest generation.
The question of public opinion within Israel regarding Netanyahu’s policies is also raised. While some believe the Israeli people are as powerless to remove Netanyahu as the US is to remove Trump, others argue that the Knesset, particularly the Likud party, strongly supports the war effort and expanded control. The narrative that the majority of the Israeli public supports the current war and is aligned with the government’s actions suggests a broad consensus for military action and increased control in Gaza, regardless of who leads the government.
Ultimately, the reported order for the Israeli army to take control of 70% of Gaza represents a significant development. It is a move born from a complex web of security concerns, the ongoing refusal of Hamas to disarm, and the perceived lack of viable diplomatic alternatives. The humanitarian consequences, regional dynamics, and the long-term implications for peace in the region remain subjects of intense debate and concern.