For months, the world has watched the war in Gaza unfold as a series of devastating military operations. But behind the daily reports of airstrikes and casualties, a quieter, more structural shift is taking place—one that could reshape the region for decades. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has signaled an intention to assert long-term gaza military control over roughly seventy percent of the Gaza Strip. This is not a temporary ceasefire grab. It is a strategic pivot that moves beyond the stated goal of dismantling Hamas and toward something closer to permanent occupation.
What Does ‘Controlling 70%’ Actually Mean for Gaza Military Control?
When a leader talks about controlling a majority of a territory, the immediate question is: What does that look like on the ground? In this case, it suggests that Israeli forces would maintain a lasting presence across large swaths of northern and central Gaza, including key buffer zones along the border. These are areas that have already been heavily depopulated and, in many cases, reduced to rubble. The remaining thirty percent—mostly in the south around Rafah and Khan Younis—would become a kind of densely packed enclave for the civilian population, effectively sealed off from the rest of the Strip. This is not the kind of control that comes with occupation law or civil administration. It is military control, enforced by patrols, checkpoints, and no-go zones. It would allow Israel to dictate who moves where, who receives aid, and what rebuilding looks like—if it happens at all.
From ‘Mowing the Grass’ to Long-Term Entrenchment
Historically, Israel’s approach to Gaza has been described as ‘mowing the grass’—periodic incursions to degrade militant capabilities, followed by a withdrawal. This new posture represents a radical departure. Instead of pulling back after a campaign, the military would stay. The rationale, according to Israeli officials, is that a complete withdrawal would allow Hamas or other armed groups to reconstitute. But critics argue that permanent gaza military control is a recipe for endless conflict. “The idea that you can control a territory without governing it, without taking responsibility for the people who live there, is a fantasy,” said a former Israeli defense official who asked not to be named. “You are inheriting a humanitarian catastrophe and turning it into a prison. That is not a security strategy—it is an occupation by another name.”
The Forgotten Question: What About the People?
Lost in the geopolitical maneuvering is the human reality. The majority of Gaza’s 2.3 million residents are already displaced, many multiple times. If the Israeli military assumes control over seventy percent of the land, those people will have nowhere to return to. Their homes are gone. Their hospitals are destroyed. Their schools are leveled. And now the ground they once lived on is being absorbed into a security buffer. International law is clear on this: an occupying power has obligations toward the civilian population. It must ensure food, water, medical care, and public order. History suggests that even well-intentioned occupations fail at this. And this one, by all accounts, is not intended to be well-intentioned. It is designed to prevent attacks on Israeli communities—full stop. This is where the moral arithmetic gets uncomfortable. Israeli security is a legitimate concern. The October 7 attacks demonstrated that. But the response—turning half a million people into refugees within their own land and then annexing their territory—is not proportionate. It is not legal under the Geneva Conventions. And it will not bring peace.
Regional and Global Reactions to Gaza Military Control
Unsurprisingly, the proposal has drawn sharp condemnation from Arab capitals. Egypt and Jordan have both warned that any permanent Israeli presence in Gaza would be a red line, potentially collapsing their peace treaties. Saudi Arabia, which was on the verge of normalizing relations with Israel before the war, has pulled back. Even the United States, Israel’s closest ally, has expressed unease. Washington continues to call for a return to Palestinian Authority governance in Gaza, a vision that looks increasingly unrealistic. But here is the twist: the U.S. has not threatened consequences. It has not withheld military aid. It has not used its veto power at the UN Security Council to block resolutions. In practice, American policy has been to express concern while allowing Israel to proceed. This gives Netanyahu a green light, even if the official language is cautious. For more on the fragile ceasefire, see Gaza Ceasefire Dream Fades. For further analysis on territorial control, see Gaza’s shrinking horizon: Israel’s territorial grab.
What Comes Next?
The most immediate consequence of this strategy is the death of the two-state solution. You cannot have a viable Palestinian state if Israel controls seventy percent of Gaza and the entire West Bank. That leaves only a handful of unworkable options: a single binational state, permanent apartheid-like separation, or endless war. Netanyahu’s government has chosen the third path, perhaps because it is the easiest to sell to an Israeli public that is traumatized and angry. But it is also the most dangerous. It locks both sides into a cycle of violence with no exit. And it ensures that Gaza, already the most densely populated place on earth, will become a permanent humanitarian emergency zone—one that the world will be forced to watch from a distance, unable or unwilling to stop it. This is not a war ending. It is a war changing shape. And the shape it is taking is not temporary. It is designed to last. For authoritative analysis on international law, see ICRC on Occupation and IHL. For more on regional security dynamics, see CSIS analysis on Gaza and regional security.
