On October 5, Israel launched a ground military operation demanding the evacuation of Palestinians residing in Beit Hanoon, Beit Lahiya, Jabalia refugee camp and Jabalia town. He then halted the transfer of humanitarian aid to the region, leading aid agencies to sound the alarm about impending famine.
The stated objective of this operation is to destroy the Palestinian resistance forces grouped in the north. However, observers noted that this new attack could be the first step in what Israeli media have dubbed the “General’s Plan” of ethnic cleansing of northern Gaza as a form of collective punishment of Palestinians.
The plan was presented by retired General Giora Eiland and calls for the expulsion of Palestinians from the region, the forced subsidence and targeting of those who remain there – to be considered “targets”. legitimate military personnel. At a session of the Knesset Foreign Affairs Defense Committee in September, Eiland reportedly said: “What matters to (Hamas leader Yahya) Sinwar is land and dignity, and with this maneuver , you take away both the earth and the dignity. »
A week later, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu informed members of the same committee that he planned to implement this proposal. He is likely hoping that this plan will provide him with the opportunity to declare a face-saving “victory” in front of the Israeli public, given that a year after the start of the war, his government has still not achieved its goals of ” destroy Hamas.
However, Israel is unlikely to have the military capacity and political space to fully implement Eiland’s proposal.
There are several reasons why Israel seeks to cut off and control the northern part of the Gaza Strip. First, it wants to separate Gaza City, the administrative center of the Strip and seat of political power, from the rest of the territory, thereby dismantling the physical infrastructure of Palestinian governance. This has political significance.
Second, Gaza City is an important center of social services, home to Gaza’s main hospital, the al-Shifa Medical Complex, and most of its universities. Many non-profit organizations, businesses and much of Gaza’s middle class were based there. Many prominent families historically associated with the government of the Gaza region trace their roots to the city. The loss of Gaza City would have a considerable social impact on the Palestinian population.
Third, the northern Gaza Strip is also important for Israel from a security perspective. It is home to the Jabalia refugee camp, the largest in Palestine, where the first Palestinian Intifada began and where several major Israeli military campaigns were thwarted.
Northern Gaza is also close to key Israeli sites, such as the port of Ashkelon, located just 10 km from the Gaza border. A significant portion of southern Israel’s population resides in the Ashkelon-Ashdod region. Control of Gaza’s northern coast could also provide greater security to southern Israel and its gas drilling infrastructure and possibly contribute to the illegal appropriation of the Gaza Marine gas field.
It was with all of this in mind that the Israeli military began preparing some form of expanded control over northern Gaza, long before the “General’s Plan” was presented as official policy. In November last year, it began work on what has become known as the Netzarim Corridor, a strip of land stretching from Israel’s official borders to the Mediterranean Sea that bisects the north of Gaza in its central and southern parts.
The 4 km wide corridor offers the Israeli army significant logistical and tactical advantages, allowing it to resupply its forces stationed in Gaza City and the central Gaza Strip and to control the flow of aid humanitarian aid entering northern Gaza.
Designated as a closed military zone, it prevents Palestinians from returning from the south to the north, as anyone attempting to enter risks being shot. Israeli forces are stationed in several locations along the corridor, using it as a key base to gather troops and launch military operations.
Throughout the past year of incessant war, Israel has repeatedly issued evacuation orders to the north and sought to expel its remaining population by reducing access to humanitarian aid, bombing , attacking and destroying health centers and hospitals and targeting other critical infrastructure like water wells and electricity. generators. It also systematically targeted residential buildings and schools converted into shelters to deprive people of shelter and sow fear. As a result, there are an estimated 400,000 people left in the north, out of a pre-war population of 1.1 million.
The “General’s Plan” involves intensifying all of these activities to completely force the Palestinians out of northern Gaza. Once the area was cleared of residents, the Israeli army would declare it a closed military zone, denying Palestinians access to their homes and land.
If Israel also retains control of Rafah in the south, this would effectively confine most of Gaza’s population to a smaller, overcrowded area in the center or along the coast, creating dire living conditions. This strategy could ultimately put pressure on part of the population to leave the Gaza Strip. Advocating for such measures, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has repeatedly called for policies that would force Palestinians into “voluntary emigration” by creating unbearable living conditions.
The “General’s Plan” could succeed if Israel moved forward without constraints of time or resources. However, it is unlikely that the Israeli military will be able to continue its operations in Gaza indefinitely, especially with the ongoing war with Lebanon requiring significant troop deployments and strategic focus and with the potential for escalation with the Iran. The spirit of firmness demonstrated by the population remaining in northern Gaza also calls into question the effectiveness of this plan.
Furthermore, it is questionable how long Israeli forces will be able to maintain their positions in northern Gaza without suffering increasing losses from the Palestinian resistance that continues to operate there. This is only achievable if Israel achieves a decisive victory, which would require the destruction of resistance groups. But developments over the past year have demonstrated that this is not a realistic outcome.
External pressure is also a critical factor. Arab countries, particularly Egypt and Jordan, have always opposed any large-scale transfer of the Palestinian population out of the Gaza Strip. Ethnic cleansing of the north could be the first step towards expelling Palestinians beyond the borders of the Gaza Strip. Such actions would destabilize these countries and risk triggering a new phase of the conflict – a development feared not only in Cairo and Amman but throughout the region. This could force Arab countries to act beyond the usual verbal condemnations.
Pressure on Israel is also increasing in Europe. Although European Union countries have failed to take a unified position on Israel’s war on Gaza, more and more countries are openly expressing support for decisive action. France called for an arms embargo, while Spain called for the dissolution of the free trade agreement with Israel.
In recent days, the United States, Israel’s biggest ally, has also adopted tougher rhetoric toward Israel, warning the Israeli government that it could cut off weapons supplies if it does not did not improve humanitarian conditions in Gaza. While many observers called the warning cynical, given President Joe Biden’s unwavering support for Tel Aviv over the past year, his administration will soon end.
In other words, Israel has room to maneuver guaranteed by the White House until the US elections in early November or possibly until the new administration takes over in January. Whoever the next US president is will be forced to address Israel’s actions in Gaza, as they are the source of region-wide instability and an expanding regional war . Open and protracted conflict in the Middle East is not in the United States’ strategic interests, as it could jeopardize its broader regional objectives.
Until international pressure increases, the United States changes policy, or there is an internal political event that influences Israeli public opinion, the Israeli government will likely continue to pursue the “General’s Plan” without officially recognize its intentions. The expulsion of Palestinians from northern Gaza will be presented to the Israeli public as a military success, while questions about its long-term sustainability will likely remain unanswered.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Tel Aviv Tribune.