As The Jerusalem Post has reported this week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is strongly considering a full occupation of Gaza, which would include areas where hostages are still held by Hamas.
The plan is pitting the government against the military’s situational assessment. Netanyahu and his government assert that full control of Gaza will expedite the release of the hostages, as well as signal the end of Hamas.
In a meeting on Tuesday, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir reportedly stated that the proposal would not only lead to a severe increase in troop casualties but would also endanger the hostages. He’s expected to make that argument on Thursday when the security cabinet meets to discuss and perhaps vote on the proposal.
Israel is at a crossroads. Hamas has rejected all proposals for a ceasefire, the hostages are being starved, and something has to change in the way the war in Gaza has been conducted for nearly the last two years.
Netanyahu may believe occupying Gaza will bring the hostages home and crush Hamas, but experience and military analysis suggest otherwise. Retired US general David Petraeus compared a ground campaign in Gaza to “Mogadishu on steroids,” warning of rapidly escalating casualties and chaos. (Petraeus referred to a key battle in the Somali Civil War that ultimately led to changes in American foreign policy and military interventionism.)
A full occupation of Gaza will not secure Israel; it would trap it. A broader occupation would likely fuel Hamas’s ability to go underground and regroup, trading territorial control for asymmetric insurgency.
Military experts have warned that Israel will be bogged down in a costly, open-ended war with no end in sight.
The war has already wrought severe damage on the Israeli economy. According to the Bank of Israel, all war-related activities – reservist mobilization, reduced labor, hi-tech supply chain disruptions – are costing more than $600 million a week, or about 6% of GDP in real time. Projections include a cumulative economic burden of $53-$67 billion by the end of 2025, approaching 10% of GDP.
This is a burden we all will have to bear. Not only in the pocketbook but also in prolonged military service, time away from family, and in service of a quagmire that is, in its very essence, unwinnable.
History – from Lebanon to Gaza – has taught that occupation typically breeds cycles of conflict rather than resolution. Experts warned early on that a full ground invasion would bog down IDF forces in tunnel-strewn, booby-trapped neighborhoods at enormous human and financial cost. It is imprudent to ignore the wisdom of those who have actually fought in these kinds of wars and have seen and experienced the dangers firsthand.
A long-term disaster for Israel
For Netanyahu, this course of action may satisfy short-term political pressure, but it is a long-term disaster for Israel militarily, diplomatically, economically, and morally. True national interest lies not in sustained entrenchment in Gaza but in diplomacy, ceasefire negotiations, and a viable post-war settlement.
A full occupation contradicts Israel’s long-term strategic interests. The consensus among seasoned security officials is that continuation of war, much less expansion through occupation, jeopardizes Israel’s military gains, economic stability, and moral legitimacy.
And occupying Gaza won’t eliminate Hamas; it will fuel resistance and guerrilla warfare in dense urban terrain, raising Israeli casualties and putting the hostages at even greater risk.
Netanyahu’s proposed occupation risks locking Israel into a conflict without an exit strategy, a dangerous path that would surely turn Gaza into Israel’s Vietnam.
Occupation would not only intensify the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, it would also hand Hamas a propaganda victory, painting Israel as a perpetual occupier and rallying new generations to “resistance.”
At home, Israelis have for months been questioning the war’s aims: Why send thousands more soldiers into harm’s way with no clear horizon?
Former Israeli military and intelligence leaders have urged Netanyahu to halt the war, arguing that escalation will damage Israel’s long-term security.
Internationally, allies grow impatient, while adversaries gain narrative ground.
This is why the warnings from Israel’s own security establishment, including Zamir, should be heeded. They understand that the most dangerous wars are not those that begin in fire but those that never end.