Behind closed doors and amid rising tensions that reflect the deep structural crisis within the Israeli political and military establishment, the option of a full-scale occupation of the Gaza Strip is once again seriously on the table. It is reportedly driven by a presumed green light from U.S. President Donald Trump, and strong opposition from some in the security establishment.
اضافة اعلان
The meeting of the Security Cabinet this evening comes at an extremely sensitive moment, likely to determine the next phase of the assault on Gaza, in light of increasing reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has decided to expand the scope of military operations to include all areas of the Strip, including those believed to hold captives.
The sudden shift in political discourse within the Israeli entity cannot be separated from international and regional atmospheres, but it is primarily based on personal support from Trump for Netanyahu, which has been seen in circles close to the latter as a full mandate to open the door to a scenario of complete occupation—despite both public and implicit reservations from prominent military leaders, foremost among them Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, who may hint at resignation if forced to implement such a decision.
At a time when indirect negotiations were nearing a partial agreement on the captives, the political decision to suddenly abandon the negotiation track confirms that the approach of escalation is the preferred option for the Israeli government, in an attempt to resolve the battle by force rather than understandings, even if temporary. This approach, which ignores the complexity of the Gaza scene, reflects a clear desire to override humanitarian and political costs and to position itself in the category of "military victory" as a political achievement before being a field one.
The conflicting assessments within decision-making institutions in the Israeli entity are no longer a secret. The gap is widening between the political leadership, which is searching for an existential formula to save it from the dilemma of failing to achieve its objectives, and the security establishment, which realizes the strategic predicament of moving toward a full ground occupation, in a complex geography, with a population worn down by war and siege—but not broken.
If the decision is made, it will not be a passing military step but will turn into a historical turning point that redraws the nature of the conflict in the region and entangles the Israeli entity in a long war of attrition, where it lacks the elements of control or the ability to manage the post-invasion phase. With the declining ability to impose new political equations through negotiations, Gaza turns into a mirror that reflects the crisis of the occupation itself—not the crisis of those facing it.
The rush toward extreme options does not reflect the strength of decision-making as much as it reflects the narrowing of options and the loss of direction—at a moment when political calculations seem stronger than field considerations.
