Israel’s Gaza strategy

The news that Israel’s cabinet has decided to take over Gaza as part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s broader strategy to control the Gaza Strip has sparked intense debate.

Many affirm a moral imperative to counter Hamas and secure innocent hostages. However, the risks of endangering hostages, causing civilian suffering, and ultimately failing to eliminate Hamas demand significant scrutiny. Similarly, while Netanyahu’s long-term vision of transferring Gaza to Arab forces could stabilize the region, the whole plan hinges on uncertain and unreliable cooperation with unreliable players. Without a clear governance plan, Israel’s strategy risks both strategic failure and an international backlash. The challenge lies in balancing justice against Hamas with compassion for civilians caught in the crossfire. Supporting a takeover may seem justified to counter Hamas’ evil atrocities, but the potential costs to hostages, civilians, and Israel’s global standing urge caution.

How, then, should we approach this conflict amid Hamas’ brutality and Israel’s security needs?

Hamas’ horrific actions—its refusal to release hostages and its use of human lives for political gain—justify decisive measures. Defeating the terrorist group is a strategic necessity, and Israel’s revealed plan to control Gaza might actually pressure Hamas into negotiations. Netanyahu has stated that Israel does not intend to govern Gaza long-term but aims to establish a “security perimeter” and transfer governance to “friendly Arab forces” opposed to Hamas. Though it seems appealing, this vision is fraught with uncertainties. Arab Muslim nations may resist involvement, and the lack of a clear roadmap of governance could leave Israel mired in a chaotic power vacuum.

Conversely, controlling Gaza poses significant risks.

A takeover would likely endanger hostages and would definitely escalate the humanitarian catastrophe. Militarily, Israel risks a prolonged insurgency, assuming a massive humanitarian burden while facing intensified international condemnation. Global leaders have already criticized Israel’s plan, and diplomatic isolation could deepen.

Furthermore, what many avoid considering is that, beyond strategy, the war has become a political lifeline for Netanyahu, whose career was faltering before the conflict escalated.

Since 2019, Netanyahu has faced trial for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, with allegations even implicating his wife. A June 2024 poll by the Israel Democracy Institute found only 28% of Jewish Israelis viewed him as fit to lead—a historic low. A potential seven-year prison sentence loomed. Clearly, by mid-2025, his political fortunes were crumbling under corruption allegations, domestic discontent, and a fractured coalition.

This war and its consequences provide him a temporary escape, especially with public frustration growing over his handling of the conflict.

His perceived reluctance to prioritize a hostage deal—while over 100 Israelis remained captive—fueled anger. A May 2025 Hebrew University poll showed 62% of Israelis believed the war had dragged on too long, and 55% accused Netanyahu of prolonging it to delay elections he was likely to lose. Protests erupted, led by hostage families, reservists, and academics. Clearly, this recent escalation in Gaza shifted the narrative, as it rallied public unity and pushed Netanyahu’s corruption trial out of the headlines, offering a political reprieve. The war, once a liability, became a platform to reassert his leadership.

Yet this revival may be fleeting. A prolonged stalemate, with hostages still captive and humanitarian conditions worsening, could reignite criticism. Netanyahu’s challenge is that the war sustaining his political career could also destroy it. If the campaign fails to deliver decisive results, opponents will frame it as a self-serving distraction from corruption charges and domestic discontent. Ultimately, his military posture not only aligns with Israel’s security needs but also carries political and moral risks.

The current predicament extends beyond politics. Mixing national security with personal political survival clouds Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself. Supporting action against Hamas is distinct from endorsing strategies risking humanitarian disaster or serving political expediency.

A balanced approach would intensify pressure on Hamas without committing to full-scale occupation. Targeted military action, paired with robust diplomacy to secure hostage releases and deliver humanitarian aid, would uphold both security and moral imperatives. This strategy avoids the swamp of prolonged governance over Gaza while addressing the immediate threat.

Netanyahu’s future, like Gaza’s, hangs in the balance. Whether this conflict cements his legacy as the leader who secured Israel’s borders or as the politician—who prolonged war to save his career—depends on the coming months. For now, Gaza has given him time—but political capital, like time, runs out quickly.

We should support justice without cruelty, security without oppression, and leaders—on all sides—who prioritize their people over personal gain. Israel’s actions in Gaza will shape not only its security but also its moral and global standing for years to come. Sustained military pressure on Hamas, coupled with diplomatic efforts to free hostages and ensure aid reaches civilians, offers a path forward. This approach aligns with the moral call to protect the innocent while avoiding the pitfalls of occupation.