Netanyahu’s Gaza gambit: A last stand or strategic folly?

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushes forward with his plan to conquer the remaining 25 per cent of the Gaza Strip, the move is being met with fierce resistance, not just from the international community but from within Israel’s own military and political establishment. The plan, approved by the Israeli security cabinet after a tense 10-hour meeting, marks a dramatic escalation in a war that has already claimed over 61,000 Palestinian lives and left Israel increasingly isolated. Netanyahu insists that complete military control of Gaza is essential to “remove Hamas” and “liberate the population”. Yet his refusal to engage in a final hostage swap—despite the pleas of families and negotiators—suggests that political survival, not strategic clarity, is driving this campaign.

Internal dissent: Military voices of caution

Israel’s Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, has warned that occupying Gaza would endanger the remaining hostages and strain the IDF beyond its limits. “Our forces are worn out, the military tools need maintenance, and there are humanitarian and sanitary concerns,” he reportedly told the cabinet. Zamir’s alternative plan was rejected by Netanyahu and his far-right allies, including Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who demand total conquest and reject further negotiations. Former Shin Bet chief Ami Ayalon echoed this concern, stating, “From the military point of view, [Hamas] is totally destroyed. On the other hand, as an ideology, it is gaining more power among Palestinians and the Arab street”. The implication is clear: military occupation may win battles, but it risks losing the war of ideas.

Strategic missteps: Lessons from Lebanon

Julian Rennell, writing for The Times of Israel, contrasts Netanyahu’s Gaza strategy with Israel’s successful disengagement from Lebanon. There, decisive military action was followed by a structured withdrawal, allowing for regional stability without permanent occupation. Gaza, by contrast, threatens to become a “swamp”—a dense urban battlefield where Israeli forces would be bogged down in endless guerrilla warfare. Opposition leader Yair Lapid has called the plan “a disaster that will lead to more disasters,” warning that it will cost tens of billions, kill hostages and soldiers, and trap Israel in a “useless occupation that no one understands”.

International condemnation: Europe breaks ranks

Netanyahu’s plan has drawn sharp rebukes from European leaders. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer called it “wrong” and urged Israel to reconsider immediately. Germany, historically one of Israel’s staunchest allies, announced a halt to arms exports that could be used in Gaza, with Chancellor Friedrich Merz stating, “The massive military strikes no longer reveal any logic to me—how they serve the goal of confronting terror”.

Even Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, has signalled concern over Israel’s conduct, aligning with a growing chorus of EU voices calling for an end to the blockade and a return to international law.

READ: Netanyahu says Israel intends to occupy Gaza

American ambivalence: Strategic leverage or blank cheque?

Former US officials, including Dennis Ross and Matthew Levitt, have warned that Netanyahu’s plan lacks a viable post-war strategy. Levitt notes that Hamas may relinquish governance but retain influence, mirroring Hezbollah’s model in Lebanon. “Rolling out fighters to celebrate survival is enough for Hamas to claim victory,” he said. Colonel Seth Krummrich, a former US Special Forces commander, was blunt: “This is not realistic at all. To capture and hold terrain takes an enormous number of soldiers and resources. The Israeli population is divided on this issue, so there are domestic headwinds that will not support this level of mobilisation”.

Hostages as political collateral

Netanyahu’s refusal to authorise a final hostage swap has drawn outrage from families and negotiators. Einav Zangauker, mother of hostage Matan Zangauker, said, “Someone who talks about a comprehensive deal doesn’t go and conquer the Strip and put hostages and soldiers in danger”. The hostage negotiating team reportedly urged the cabinet not to close the door on future deals. Netanyahu’s response? The operation could be stopped “if Hamas agrees to Israel’s demands”—a conditional offer immediately rejected by Ben Gvir, who insisted the war must continue until total victory. Netanyahu’s political calculus is inseparable from his coalition’s survival. Smotrich and Ben Gvir, whose ultranationalist agenda hinges on perpetual war, have made clear that any compromise—especially a hostage deal—would cost Netanyahu his government. As Yehuda Cohen, father of a captive soldier, put it: “Netanyahu is working only for himself”.

Conclusion: A last gambit with no exit strategy

Netanyahu’s plan to conquer Gaza is not merely a military maneuver—it is a political gambit, a desperate attempt to salvage a collapsing coalition and legacy. But the cost is staggering: the lives of hostages, the credibility of the IDF, and Israel’s standing in the world. As former Israeli military strategist Gabi Siboni warned, “We need to clean Gaza. This is a task for years”. Yet the question remains: what is left to clean, and at what cost? The world watches, not with admiration, but with alarm.

OPINION: The seeds of intervention – American exceptionalism and the 1953 Coup in Iran

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.