Why Israel's new Gaza plan lacks a path to peace

Editor's note: Imran Khalid, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a freelance columnist on international affairs. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On August 8, the Israeli Prime Minister's Office announced that the security cabinet had approved Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's proposal to "defeat Hamas." The plan instructs the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to take control of Gaza City while facilitating humanitarian assistance to civilians outside combat areas.

Notably, the statement makes no reference to the "full occupation of the Gaza Strip" that Netanyahu had previously pledged – signaling a significant shift in both rhetoric and operational scope.

According to official details, the initiative is built around five key objectives: the disarmament of Hamas, the release of Israeli hostages, the demilitarization of Gaza, continued Israeli security oversight, and the creation of an "alternative civilian administration" to govern Gaza. This pivot from occupation to a focus on Gaza City reflects a recalibration shaped by battlefield realities, domestic political pressures and growing international opposition.

The announcement comes in the context of a devastating humanitarian crisis. Gaza's Health Ministry reports that more than 61,000 Palestinians have been killed since the outbreak of hostilities, with 90 percent of the enclave's 2.1 million residents displaced. Food shortages have reached catastrophic levels, with the United Nations warning of famine conditions.

Hamas, anticipating the latest Israeli move, accused Netanyahu of placing personal and political considerations above the fate of the 50 remaining hostages – of whom only 20 are believed to be alive – warning that the operation could lead to their deaths.

Reaction from the Arab world was swift. The Palestinian Authority and regional powers such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia rejected the plan, with Amman stressing that security in Gaza should be entrusted to "legitimate Palestinian institutions." This reflects broader regional skepticism toward Netanyahu's vision of post-Hamas governance by unspecified "Arab forces," a proposal that lacks clarity and regional buy-in.

Internationally, the plan has drawn widespread criticism. UN Assistant Secretary-General Miroslav Jenca warned of "catastrophic consequences" for Palestinian civilians and Israeli hostages alike. Germany has suspended arms exports to Israel, citing concerns over the disproportionate impact on civilians. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer called the move "wrong" and counterproductive to resolving the conflict or securing hostage releases. Australia, Finland, and Türkiye have also voiced concerns, pointing to potential violations of international law, particularly the mass displacement of Gaza City's one million residents.

Even Israel's closest ally, the United States, has taken a cautious tone – President Donald Trump acknowledged Gaza's severe humanitarian crisis though refraining from endorsing Palestinian statehood.

The narrowing of operational objectives is also partly a response to divisions within Israel's leadership. While hardline members of Netanyahu's coalition continue to call for total dismantling of Hamas, senior military officials, among them Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, have opposed a full reoccupation, citing the risks to hostages and the strain on reservists after nearly two years of continuous conflict.

Public opposition has also grown, with large protests in Jerusalem led by the hostages' families and opposition politicians warning that the plan could be costly, risky and strategically inconclusive.

The proposal's ambiguity is most evident in its governance component. Excluding both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority from Gaza's future administration leaves unanswered the critical question of who would take on this role. Arab governments have made clear they are unwilling to fill the vacuum.

On the humanitarian front, aid distribution would continue through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation – an arrangement criticized by the UN and aid groups such as Medecins Sans Frontieres for inefficiency and inadequate capacity. Current aid flows of around 38 trucks per day entering Gaza remain far below the 500-600 trucks the UN says are necessary to prevent famine.

Netanyahu's choice of October 7, 2025 – the second anniversary of Hamas's surprise attack – as the target date for seizing Gaza City adds symbolic weight but also operational risk. Hamas is likely to be well-prepared, and while the IDF controls much of the territory, previous efforts to hold Gaza City have met with sustained resistance.

Netanyahu's earlier policy of allowing Qatari funds to reach Hamas, intended to weaken the Palestinian Authority, is now under investigation by the Israel Security Agency, adding a layer of political irony to the current campaign.

Regionally, the move risks intensifying existing tensions. Iran, engaged in a low-intensity conflict with Israel since June, could escalate its support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Syria's post-Assad instability could be further complicated by Israeli strikes. The outright rejection of the plan by Arab states may embolden other non-state actors, increasing the likelihood of a broader confrontation.

China has consistently called for a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders and for immediate humanitarian relief to the people of Gaza. Beijing's position underscores the importance of renewed multilateral diplomacy – through the UN and regional mechanisms – to bridge the gap between Palestinian aspirations and Israeli security concerns. Without such engagement, the Gaza City plan risks entrenching a military and political stalemate that will prolong suffering and undermine prospects for regional stability. 

Unless there is sustained international pressure for a ceasefire and a credible political roadmap, the Gaza City operation may be remembered less as a turning point toward peace and more as another episode in a cycle of escalation deepening the humanitarian tragedy in Gaza and perpetuating insecurity across the region.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)