Netanyahu's Latest Gaza Gambit: Bluff Or Further Folly? We Will Soon See.
Today's announcement from Israel that it intends to take full control of Gaza demands attention—not for the predictable condemnations that will follow, or the protests from Israel's own military brass, but for the opportunity it might paradoxically present. Against all conventional wisdom, Netanyahu may see it in his self-interest to end the conflict as the leader who not only confronted Iran and its proxies but also dismantled Hamas, and even created the basis for a new kind of Palestinian state—potentially recasting himself from global villain, to a mere unscrupulous peacemaker.
Ending Hamas: Real or Bluff?
Netanyahu claims he's initiating a "gradual" takeover of Gaza to dismantle Hamas once and for all. While absolute elimination of an ideology and its followers is impossible, the practical dismantling of Hamas as a governing entity is a goal shared by several Arab states in the region. Netanyahu's timing is also likely influenced by France's recognition of Palestinian statehood and similar signals from the UK. The move will undoubtedly face widespread international and internal criticism on both moral and strategic grounds.
Yet two elements in Netanyahu's rhetoric deserve attention. First, he has shifted his usual script: Israel, he claims, doesn't seek permanent control of Gaza, but rather a demilitarized territory with civilian government that is neither Hamas, nor the Palestinian Authority. This position aligns with the views of many Arab capitals, even if they rarely state them publicly.
Second, this acknowledgment—however cynical its origins—touches on an uncomfortable truth rarely voiced in diplomatic circles: any path to a viable Palestinian state requires leadership that is capable, forward-looking, and genuinely invested in Palestinian welfare. The current options fail this test.
The West's Contradictory Stance
Macron's recognition of Palestine appears driven as much by domestic political calculations as by principle. By offering symbolism without substance—a declaration rather than a comprehensive plan—he effectively condemns Palestinians to continued failure while claiming moral high ground. No seasoned leader could believe that mere recognition would moderate Netanyahu; more likely, it would provoke exactly this kind of escalation.
The Abraham Accords Precedent
The risks of Netanyahu's move are clear: more Palestinian casualties, potential death of all remaining hostages, and the possibility of Israel becoming mired in Gaza while igniting upheaval in the West Bank or Jordan. Israel's international standing, already damaged, would suffer further.
Yet this scenario eerily echoes the choreography that produced the Abraham Accords. In 2020, Netanyahu threatened to annex parts of the West Bank—a threat that provided the UAE with the pretext to publicly intervene, ultimately leading to unprecedented Arab-Israeli agreements that led to tangible and expansive plans for cooperation in multiple domains. That this progress contributed to the conditions enabling the October 7 attack doesn't negate the creative diplomacy it represented.
Netanyahu's current threat might similarly provide Arab states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE with the "crisis" needed to broker a comprehensive deal. The raised stakes could justify the kind of bold intervention that earlier, less dramatic moments could not.
Essential Elements of a Sustainable Solution
The recent ceasefire proposals were always a dead end without addressing Hamas's future. Any deal that genuinely ends rather than postpones the conflict will likely require:
Safe passage for remaining Hamas leadership to a state like Qatar in exchange for all hostages
Clear architecture for Palestinian statehood that bypasses both Hamas and the discredited PA
Innovative governance structures that include both Gaza's survivors and the Palestinian diaspora—those with the skills, capital, and connections to build functioning institutions
Palestinians have one of the most educated diasporas in the world, yet this resource remains painfully underutilized. The region should explore cutting-edge governance models—from Estonia's e-government innovations to charter city concepts—while avoiding the failed international protectorates imposed elsewhere. While terms like "mandate" carry colonial baggage, a collective Arab guardianship supporting stable, progressive Palestinian governance deserves consideration — and implementation.
An Unlikely Turning Point?
Perhaps this moment of escalating crisis could become the comprehensive peace that has eluded the region for decades. Netanyahu, driven by self-preservation and legacy concerns, might inadvertently create conditions for breakthrough. Arab states, seeing opportunity to prevent chaos while countering Iran, might finally broker innovative solutions. And Palestinians, embracing new leadership and governance models, might finally achieve the path to a capable state they deserve.
I'm not optimistic. But history often moves through paradox rather than intention. Sometimes, the worst actors inadvertently enable the best outcomes. Whether through calculation or accident, the current dangerous moment may yet produce unexpected possibilities.
The Middle East-Told Slant offers a non-partisan, practitioner's perspective on Middle East politics, conflict, and culture. Written by a former US diplomat with 25+ years of regional experience, author of "Benghazi: A New History" (Hachette, 2022) and the forthcoming "A Modern History of the Red Sea."
Each week, I share analysis on current events, historical context, and cultural insights from the region, drawing on my experience in government, business, and academia across the Middle East.
To receive weekly posts and support independent journalism on the Middle East, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Paid subscribers receive a complimentary copy of any of my books (a value equal to the annual subscription — DM me to redeem).
Thanks Ethan! Color me skeptical though. Considering Israel appears to have fought this war for going on two years without a campaign plan to systematically advance and destroy Hamas and separate the civilian population from its control, I wonder if Israel is unable or unwilling (militarily or politically) to pursue an Operation Inherent Resolve-like war against Hamas. Thinking of the Iraqi military in Mosul, they went street by street in Mosul, suffered enormous casualties, but separated civilians while advancing and eventually destroyed the group's presence the city. Not to minimize the casualties the IDF has suffered, but it does seem there has been an unwillingness to engage in tunnel warfare, which I imagine would be required to decisively defeat Hamas. Mowing the lawn and bombing the rubble, retaking the same parts of Gaza over and over again, seems like the absence of a strategy all along.
I hope so. But like you, I'm not optimistic. Netanyahu might indeed pull off something of worth out of degradation, but it is compromised by the fact that he has his eye on keeping himself out of prison and making himself into an Israeli Abraham Lincoln. That taints whatever good could come out of all this and will not erase the fact that the overwhelming majority of people who are starving to death, in addition to the already-dead, are civilians who had nothing to do with Hamas and most likely did not support them or the hostage-taking to begin with. It gives both his actions and the IDF sweeps every appearance of the lack of a clear plan and the loss of the intention to go into Gaza to begin with, given the willingness to engage in such a ghastly tactical scheme (I hate that term "collateral damage") that is no nearer to getting those hostages out.