Historically, the Gaza Strip has been one of the most conflictive and chaotic places in the Middle East and the world in general. However, occasional moments put it in the spotlight, and the events that have been unfolding since October 7, 2023 make it the epicenter of the spotlight constantly. During the last months, and mainly since the motivational impulse derived from the attack to the Iranian nuclear plan in conjunction with the United States, Israel is intensifying its actions both from the discursive point of view and its actions in the region.
New occupation?
In the last hours, there have been clear signals from the Israeli high command that the military occupation of Gaza is an option under consideration. This action would imply a radical turnaround since the unilateral withdrawal of its troops 20 years ago. This scenario is presented as a response to the stagnation of military operations against Hamas, which, despite a year of Israeli offensive, has managed to maintain its operational capacity and the retention of dozens of hostages, held captive since the events of October 7.
The most hard-line wing of the Israeli government maintains that an effective occupation of Gaza would allow the total dismantling of Hamas, guaranteeing a stable military presence and relative order in the region. However, some 600 former Israeli security officials have come out strongly against the occupation of Gaza in a letter, criticizing Benjamin Netanyahu's management and demanding an immediate end to the Israeli offensive.
In addition, they claim that the offensive in Gaza has not only damaged the country's image internationally, but they also claim that it has damaged Israel's internal cohesion. They state that the war has ceased to be a matter related to national security and has become a political instrument that responds to government interests, eroding the legitimacy of the government. All this generates an erosion of the civil-military relationship and of confidence in the leadership.
Critical humanitarian situation
Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip is worsening by the second. Hundreds of civilians have died in recent weeks, while approximately 2,000 humanitarian aid trucks have been stranded for lack of security guarantees. Various international organizations, such as the Red Cross, speak of famine, sanitary collapse and massive displacements.
While negotiations are at a standstill, some sectors are beginning to speak of a "Palestinian genocide", since they maintain that the situation is caused by Israeli actions, which prevent the local population from accessing humanitarian aid. This position has become even stronger due to unfortunate statements made by Israeli officials, such as Bezasel Smortrich, Israeli Finance Minister, who has repeatedly stated that letting Palestinians die in Gaza could be "justified and moral".
New acknowledgments
One of the arguments always used when talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the lack of legitimacy of the Palestinian state due to the non-recognition of Western powers. However, in the last few weeks 3 members of the G7 have announced that they will recognize the Palestinian state. These countries are Canada, France and the United Kingdom.
These new recognitions generate a new situation, as they are states that have historically been allies of the Israeli state, and their adherence to the two-state policy generates a scenario in which other G7 member countries or the European Union may follow in their footsteps.
Point of no return?
Undoubtedly, the acceleration of the narrative of a possible Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip 20 years after its withdrawal causes a new state of alert both for the states involved and for their strategic allies, such as the United States in the case of Israel. It remains to be seen what Washington's position will be in the face of this stance, since it would imply an escalation of tension not desired by the Trump administration.
The idea of a reoccupation is not something new, but it would represent a setback to a potential resolution of the conflict, leaving the two-state policy almost definitely unfeasible. We are clearly facing a moment in which a decision could be a hinge in the history of the conflict, and of the region in general.
Comments