With Gaza starving and in ruins, Israel seeks total conquest

The world is watching as Gaza starves, with famine taking the lives of Palestinians, including children, on a daily basis in the coastal enclave, as Israel continues to weaponise hunger in its devastating war.

Nearly 22 months after the Hamas-led assault on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, the group still holds 20 living Israeli captives and has refused to disarm.

Although last month’s talks in Doha briefly stirred hopes for a ceasefire, that optimism has since dissipated.

What remains is a Palestinian territory that lies in ruins, where diplomacy has failed, genocide continues, and Gaza’s suffering has become a defining indictment of our era.

Frustrated by his country’s inability to achieve its wartime goals in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently proposed annexing parts of the besieged territory unless and until Hamas capitulates.

On 29 July, Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared Gaza “an inseparable part of the land of Israel.” Five days later, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir called on his country to “conquer” the enclave.

Others in the Israeli cabinet, such as Zeev Elkin, have also recently called for annexing Gaza.

On Tuesday, meanwhile, Netanyahu told new recruits at a military base that "it is still necessary to complete the defeat of the enemy in Gaza, release our hostages and ensure that Gaza never again constitutes a threat to Israel".

Adding that “more troops than ever” are being drafted, he said that “we are not giving up on any of these missions".

Though this idea has circulated at earlier points, its reemergence now carries greater weight. With Netanyahu under growing pressure to preserve his fragile governing coalition dominated by extremist forces, it might be unwise to dismiss this proposal as mere political posturing.

Netanyahu’s talk of annexing areas in Gaza signals a potential shift toward irreversible escalation, with profound consequences for Gaza’s future and regional stability.

The Israeli PM appears to view the continued participation of the extremist ministers within his governing coalition not merely as a political asset, but as a prerequisite for his own political survival.

In recent months, he has consistently acquiesced to their demands, even when doing so has further isolated Israel internationally or deepened domestic divisions. This pattern shows how Netanyahu is beholden to the most fanatical elements of his coalition, whose visions for Gaza are grounded not in de-escalation but in unilateral assertion of control.

While annexation may appear as a desperate concession to appease far-right partners, Netanyahu has historically leveraged nationalist moves, such as settlement expansion or provocations at holy sites, as a means to project strength and distract from scandals or political instability.

Annexation could serve both to rally his domestic base and to shift the national conversation, much like the 12-day war with Iran did in June.

Although tensions within Israel’s domestic political landscape help illuminate the timing of Netanyahu’s proposal, experts continue to question both the potential consequences of annexation and how such a policy would unfold in practical terms.

“The Netanyahu government is politically weak and must constantly make adjustments to retain its more extremist members to stay in line. Consequently, contemplating an annexation plan for Gaza, after it was systematically destroyed, should not come as a surprise, although one wonders to what end,” noted Dr Joseph A. Kéchichian, a senior fellow at the King Faisal Centre in Riyadh, in an interview with The New Arab.

“Even if it is annexed, rebuilding Gaza will cost Israel billions it does not have, while few would bother to invest in various schemes to transform the strip into Monaco-East. Annexation may allow the government to claim offshore resources, [chiefly] natural gas, as its own, though that would be thievery, which might create its own problems,” he added.

Public opinion in Israel

The Israeli public is quite divided on this Gaza annexation proposal.

According to a poll conducted by Yossi Tatika, the owner of Tatika Research and Media, 53.2 percent of Israelis oppose the plan for annexing parts of Gaza; while 38.9 percent support it and 7.9 percent have no opinion. Israel Hayom, however, conducted a survey late last month which found that 52 percent of Israelis support the reestablishment of Jewish settlements in the enclave.

“The Israeli body politic is just as divided on this issue as it is on issues such as the return of Israeli hostages and whether Orthodox males should be conscripted,” Gordon Gray, the former US ambassador to Tunisia, told TNA.

“Annexation would exacerbate the domestic tensions that already exist,” he added.

Dr Kéchichian emphasised that in recent years, Netanyahu’s government has not appeared too worried about public opinion, including in Israel, which suggests that the domestic implications could be “mild” if the Gaza annexation agenda moves forward.

“If the plan proceeds, Israel will further distance itself from permanent peace with the Palestinians and neighbouring states, which is presumably what Israelis crave,” he told TNA.

“The forceful acquisition of land, killings, and starving, as well as displacing native populations, will all ensure warfare. The question that everyone should ask is whether permanent war is the preferred option for Israelis,” he added.

The international community

In recent weeks, a growing number of Western countries have begun signalling readiness to formally recognise the State of Palestine. France and the UK - both permanent members of the UN Security Council with considerable global influence - are joined by Canada, Finland, Malta, and Portugal in expressing intent to take this step.

Should these efforts culminate in recognition by early September, the move would carry deep symbolic and political weight, highlighting a clear divergence within the West. It would underscore that many NATO and EU member states are not aligned with Washington on the question of Palestine.

“France, the United Kingdom, and Canada will now join [a number of European countries] in drawing a new path for coexistence between Israel and Palestine - in what will eventually be clearly defined borders for both countries - and while these initiatives occurred after the killings and starvation of thousands in the Occupied Territories, leading members of the international community seem to have decided that the rule of law was something useful,” said Dr Kéchichian.

“Time will tell whether lofty pronouncements will be followed by concrete deeds to accept that Palestinians are fellow human beings who have the same rights as Israelis - to live in an independent, safe, and prosperous country,” he added.

Any formal move by Israel to annex territory in Gaza - whether in whole or in part - could have profound diplomatic repercussions, particularly among Western powers that have thus far refrained from recognising Palestinian statehood.

For important NATO members, annexation could serve as a tipping point, accelerating what has already been a gradual shift toward recognition of the State of Palestine, according to Gray.

The erosion of the two-state framework, compounded by the absence of a credible peace process and the scale of death and destruction in Gaza, has created conditions under which even traditionally cautious states may feel compelled to take assertive diplomatic stances.

“But it is highly unlikely that this prospect would figure in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s calculus as he considers annexing Gaza in whole or in part,” Gray told TNA.

The Israeli leader’s decision-making in recent years has been increasingly shaped by domestic political imperatives, particularly the need to appease extremist factions within his governing coalition.

If anything, the prospect of further alienating Israel’s backers in NATO and the EU might even constitute a political asset in the eyes of coalition members who fundamentally reject the legitimacy of Palestinian statehood altogether. In this context, the potential diplomatic backlash from annexation, including from influential states in the West, will probably not be a significant deterrent.

What will matter to Israel’s leadership is where the US stands. To be sure, when it comes to the Trump administration and the majority of lawmakers in Washington, Netanyahu has good reason to expect strong American backing should the Israeli government proceed with this plan to annex parts of Gaza.

Shortly after his second inauguration, Trump publicly floated the idea of a US “takeover” of Gaza, a striking and provocative proposal that underscored the administration’s unconventional and highly militarised vision for resolving the crisis in the Strip based on a “might-makes-right” ethos, sidelining international law, human rights, and normative principles while privileging brute force.

Trump’s “takeover” suggestion, though lacking in detail or follow-through, reflected a broader ideational orientation among important figures within Trump’s inner circle - one that has consistently aligned with maximalist Israeli positions, particularly on territorial sovereignty and security.

Trump’s ambassador to Israel, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, has long been a vocal proponent of Israel’s unilateral annexation of the West Bank, frequently invoking religious and nationalist arguments in favour of expanding Israeli control over Palestinian territories.

This ideological alignment was already evident during Trump’s first term, most notably in 2019 when the US became the only country in the world to officially recognise Israel’s illegal annexation of the Golan Heights, a move that broke sharply with decades of international legal consensus and UN Security Council resolutions.

Taken together, these positions reveal a consistent readiness within the Trump administration to legitimise Israeli territorial claims, even when doing so defies international law and norms, and to do so in ways that could embolden further Israeli unilateralism in Gaza and beyond.

“Neither Trump nor the majority of US Senators would publicly object to Israeli annexation of Gaza, be it the entire territory at once or a creeping annexation,” concluded Gray.

Giorgio Cafiero is the CEO of Gulf State Analytics

Follow him on X: @GiorgioCafiero