Facing internal military resistance, Netanyahu’s government moves to impose full control on the Strip, expand strikes against Hamas outside Gaza, and force the terror group’s surrender—declaring that dissenters in uniform can resign.
Since early August 2025, the Israeli government has signalled a dramatic escalation in its war strategy: full military control and occupation of Gaza, with expanded operations targeting Hamas both inside and beyond the Strip. According to political commentator Amit Segal of Channel 12, the message from Prime Minister Netanyahu and his ministers is stark: the security cabinet is expected to approve plans to “conquer and force the surrender of Hamas,” and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir—who has voiced criticism—has been told plainly: “If he doesn’t like it, he can resign.”
Official statements reinforce that narrative. Netanyahu reaffirmed the cabinet’s goals: “defeating the enemy, securing the release of hostages, and ensuring that Gaza no longer threatens Israel.” Israeli Channel 12 noted that Netanyahu is inclined to endorse full control of the enclave. A final decision is expected in a Tuesday security cabinet meeting.
Government Intent: Occupation as Strategy
Since May 2025, Israel has already initiated Operation Gideon’s Chariots, capturing roughly 65–70 percent of Gaza, according to IDF statements. The operation’s declared objectives include crippling — and eventually permanently removing — both the military and governing capacities of Hamas. The campaign was unanimously approved by the security cabinet on May 4 as a long‐term occupation effort, breaking a longstanding prohibition within Israeli policy.
Beyond Gaza, the government has authorised expanded air and naval strikes against Hamas infrastructure in allied theatres, signaling willingness to pursue Hamas beyond enclave borders. Press reports indicate ministers, notably Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben‑Gvir, support rebuilding settlements and formally annexing territory taken from Gaza—even amid internal military reservations.
Military Resistance—and Political Imperative
Despite broad support within the political echelon, senior figures in the IDF have expressed strong reservations. The Chief of Staff reportedly opposes a full occupation, citing the safety of remaining hostages and the risk of prolonged combat. Some military leaders are said to favour limited incursions or siege tactics instead.
However, the government has responded with blunt resolve. Security Cabinet ministers, including Smotrich and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, have publicly reminded the military that its duty is to obey civilian government orders. Defense Minister Israel Katz underscored that IDF personnel will implement the government’s directive, regardless of internal dissent.
Segal reports that military figures were instructed that resignation, not resistance, is the appropriate response for dissent. In the Channel 12 broadcast, Segal quotes unnamed senior staff saying the message is: “Either you support the plan or resign.”
Calculated Force and the Hostage Factor
A key driver of the campaign is the belief that tightening territorial control and squeezing Hamas in Gaza will bring hostages home and bring the organisation to surrender. Netanyahu has explicitly linked occupation of Gaza to leverage in hostage negotiations. The Morag Corridor—a newly established Israeli security zone slicing through southern Gaza—is described as strategic pressure to force Hamas back from key areas.
Times of Israel quotes Defense Minister Katz stating, “Israel intends to seize large areas … expel Hamas and return all the hostages. That’s the only way to end the war.”
Separately, Segal’s commentary reiterates that if military leaders refuse to implement the government’s decision—even over concerns about hostage risk—they are expected to resign. The consistent messaging is that political directives are absolute.
Risks and Dissenting Warnings
Security sources caution that full occupation risks inflaming Hamas to retaliate against hostages and civilian populations. Humanitarian conditions in Gaza are already dire: UN agencies and international media report civilians are dying en masse trying to access aid. Tens of thousands have perished since the conflict’s renewal in May, partly from hunger and collapsed infrastructure.
Former heads of Mossad, Shin Bet, and the IDF have publicly called for de‑escalation. They warn that continued escalation and occupation could undermine Israel’s security and identity in the long term. Those voices contrast sharply with the far‑right ministers pushing for occupation and annexation.
Analysis: Political Will Over Military Hesitation
This moment marks a pivotal shift: for decades, the idea of Israeli forces occupying Gaza again was taboo. Now it is on the cusp of cabinet approval. Security Cabinet deliberations suggest political impulse—driven by hard‑line coalition partners and Netanyahu’s personal commitment—is overriding military caution. The offer extended to the IDF leadership is clear: comply or step down.
If implemented, this decision would reshape Israel’s security doctrine and redefine the Gaza conflict. A full occupation could neutralise Hamas’s structural control—but at high cost: international condemnation, humanitarian disaster, sustained military depletion, and the risk of provoking extremist retaliation.
It shows the level of Jew hatred from the left, especially when world so-called leaders think destroying a terrorist organization is somehow a bad thing. This should’ve been done long ago.