Israel's Top General Proposes Gaza 'Takeover' Plan

By Kamaran Aziz

ERBIL (Kurdistan 24) – In a move signaling a potential major escalation in military strategy, the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has drafted a plan for the military to seize control of large swaths of the Gaza Strip, positioning it as an alternative to a government-backed humanitarian proposal and creating a direct clash with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to Israeli media reports.

The proposal, put forward by IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, comes at a critical juncture, with hostage negotiations in a delicate state and intense international debate swirling around the long-term future of the war-torn Palestinian enclave.

According to a report by Israel’s Channel 12 news, sources familiar with the proposal have described it starkly as “the plan for taking over Gaza.”

The report, cited by the Times of Israel, outlines a strategy for the military to significantly intensify its operations against Hamas. This would involve the IDF capturing and holding much more territory in the Gaza Strip than it currently occupies, with a methodical approach of "gradually taking more ground each day to show Hamas what it’s losing."

The Times of Israel further reported that Zamir’s plan is being presented as a direct alternative to the controversial “humanitarian city” concept in Rafah, a project being pushed by Israel's PM Benjamin Netanyahu. The chief of staff reportedly opposes Netanyahu’s plan and has designed his military strategy to be acted upon either in the event that ongoing hostage talks collapse, or following a potential 60-day truce if no final agreement is reached to end the war.

Adding another layer of detail, a separate report in the Israel Hayom daily, also cited by the Times of Israel, stressed that the plan would not entail a complete occupation of the entire enclave. Instead, it would see the military "encircle most parts of Gaza."

The existence of the plan has also exposed significant friction at the highest levels of Israel’s government. The Times of Israel, referencing the Israel Hayom report, stated that Netanyahu has actively prevented Lt. Gen. Zamir from presenting the full proposal to the security cabinet. Furthermore, the report claims Netanyahu has blocked even a smaller group of ministers, whom the IDF chief had already briefed, from deliberating on it further.

This internal Israeli debate over a more permanent and aggressive military posture in Gaza emerges against a wider backdrop of radical, and widely rejected, proposals for the territory's future, most notably floated in recent months by U.S. President Donald Trump. These suggestions, which ranged from relocating Gaza's population to having the U.S. "take over" the Strip, drew swift and unified rejection from Arab nations, the Palestinian leadership, and key U.S. allies.

In January 2025, President Trump publicly suggested that neighboring Arab countries should absorb Gaza’s population. "I'd like Egypt to take people. And I'd like Jordan to take people," he told reporters. He described Gaza as a "demolition site," suggesting a "clean out" of its population of "probably a million and half people" could foster peace.

The reaction from the region was immediate.

Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi, as reported by Anadolu Agency, reaffirmed Jordan’s “steadfast position” against accepting Gaza refugees, stating unequivocally, “The solution to the Palestinian issue lies in Palestine; Jordan is for Jordanians and Palestine is for Palestinians.” Egypt’s Foreign Ministry issued a similar denunciation, vowing to support “the resilience of the Palestinian people on their land.” For many Palestinians, any such plan evoked painful memories of the 1948 "Nakba," or catastrophe, which saw the mass displacement of Palestinians during Israel's creation.

The Arab League, as reported by Le Monde, condemned the proposal as "ethnic cleansing," while the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas and the Hamas political bureau both rejected any projects to relocate Gazans. While Israel officially dismissed having plans to force Gazans out, some far-right members of its government, such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, endorsed Trump's idea as "out-of-the-box thinking" that could bring peace.

The regional opposition solidified in early February when, according to AFP, the foreign ministers of Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar met in Cairo and issued a joint statement rejecting any "forcible displacement of Palestinians." Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi declared that the "displacement of the Palestinian people from their land is an injustice that we cannot take part in."

Days later, President Trump escalated his rhetoric, suggesting at a White House press conference that the United States itself should "take over the Gaza Strip." He envisioned redeveloping the war-torn territory into "the Riviera of the Middle East." This proposal was met with global repudiation. Saudi Arabia issued a sharply worded statement rejecting any infringement on Palestinian rights, and key U.S. allies like Australia and New Zealand reiterated their long-standing support for a two-state solution, distancing themselves from the remarks. In the U.S., Democratic Senator Chris Coons called the idea "offensive and insane," while Palestinian-American Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib accused Trump of "openly calling for ethnic cleansing."

Most recently, in May, NBC News reported that the Trump administration was exploring an even more specific plan: the relocation of up to one million Palestinians from Gaza to Libya, potentially supported by billions of dollars in frozen Libyan assets. Citing U.S. officials, the report noted the concept was part of a post-conflict vision but faced immense logistical hurdles. Following publication, a U.S. spokesperson dismissed the report as "untrue," stating the plan "makes no sense."

While Zamir’s military plan is distinct from Trump's relocation proposals, its emergence within the Israeli security establishment highlights a shared theme: a search for a decisive, transformative, and permanent solution to the Gaza issue. However, the unified and vehement international and regional rejection of previous "out-of-the-box" ideas serves as a stark reminder of the immense diplomatic and political obstacles that any plan perceived as leading to long-term occupation or displacement would inevitably face.