What's Behind Israel's New Military Strategy in Gaza? Netanyahu's Controversial Move Explained

Israel's Escalation in Gaza: A Political Maneuver?

After nearly two years of conflict in Gaza, the Israeli security cabinet has greenlit a significant military escalation, proposing a takeover of Gaza City. This initiative, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, aims to achieve five key goals: disarming Hamas, ensuring the return of all hostages, demilitarizing Gaza, maintaining Israeli security control in the area, and establishing a civil administration free from Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

However, this decision appears to be more aligned with Netanyahu's domestic political agenda rather than a well-thought-out military strategy. It comes despite strong opposition and serious warnings from Israeli military leaders, who have cautioned that such actions could worsen the humanitarian crisis and entrench Israel in ongoing conflict.

Nonetheless, Netanyahu is pushing forward with his plan, which seems to provide him with a strategic advantage by buying time to solidify his political standing. His current coalition, which leans far-right, benefits from prolonging the conflict. Allies like Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have repeatedly obstructed ceasefire talks, threatening to destabilize Netanyahu's government if the war were to end. Yet, Netanyahu's strategy to encircle Gaza City does not fully satisfy his coalition partners, who are advocating for a complete occupation of the region as a precursor to rebuilding Jewish settlements and ultimately annexing Gaza.

Public sentiment in Israel reflects widespread concern. Numerous opinion polls show that a majority of Israelis support a ceasefire that would facilitate the return of approximately 50 remaining hostages and conclude the conflict. Analysts and political adversaries argue that Netanyahu's current approach is disconnected from military advice and public opinion, driven instead by his urgent need for political survival.

Netanyahu's Gaza takeover plan also places him and Israel in a position of unprecedented international isolation. While the previous US administration under Donald Trump provided considerable leeway regarding the Gaza conflict, the escalating humanitarian crisis has diminished global support for Israel's actions.

The immediate fallout from the cabinet's decision was evident when Germany, Israel's second most important strategic ally after the United States, announced it would suspend certain military exports to Israel, potentially leading other European Union nations to reevaluate their relations with the country.

Despite backing from the United States, Israel faces a significant crisis in international credibility, which may take considerable time to mend. A recent Pew poll revealed that global perceptions of Israel have turned more negative than positive. In early 2025, a majority of respondents from countries such as the Netherlands (78%), Japan (79%), Spain (75%), Australia (74%), Turkey (93%), and Sweden (75%) expressed unfavorable views of Israel.

Since the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, Israeli military actions have resulted in over 60,000 Palestinian deaths. As distressing images of starving children in Gaza circulate, many of Israel's Western allies are reaching a breaking point with its policies. In a notable shift in global sentiment, France has announced intentions to recognize Palestinian statehood, with the United Kingdom and Canada pledging similar actions. Germany has also begun steps toward recognition, while Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has indicated that his country’s acknowledgment of Palestine is forthcoming. Additionally, Spain and Sweden have called for the suspension of the European Union’s trade agreement with Israel, and the Netherlands has officially labeled Israel as a “security threat,” citing efforts to influence public opinion.

A takeover of Gaza could intensify the conflict with Hamas without providing a resolution. Although twenty months of military action have significantly weakened Hamas, the group still retains the capacity for limited insurgency. History has shown that insurgencies are challenging to defeat, as evidenced by the experiences of the US in Vietnam and Iraq. Ongoing wars ultimately leave all parties worse off.