Dangerous ideas about ‘the day after’ in Gaza

After the Oct. 7 massacre, Israel pledged to overthrow Hamas rule in Gaza. Eliminating a radical group known for oppressing its own people and usurping international aid presents an opportunity to dramatically improve the lives of the 2 million Palestinians who call Gaza home.

But the eventual conclusion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza raises an important question, somehow unresolved by senior Israeli politicians: who will rule Gaza after the war?

The Israeli government is staunchly opposed to Palestinian Authority governance in Gaza, often publicly rejecting this notion — even at the cost of disagreements with the United States, which has suggested this solution repeatedly. Despite this rejection, the Israeli government has not proposed any official alternative solutions, and a recent war cabinet meeting to discuss the issue was abruptly cancelled and a second security cabinet meeting ended in shouting.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remains silent on future plans outside of stating that “the Strip will be demilitarized. There will be no power except Israel.” While Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has released a framework plan for Gaza’s future, it has received no endorsement from the prime minister. Such lack of clarity and direction has led to radical proposals emerging from far-right factions within the ruling coalition, ranging from resettling Gaza with Israeli civilians to promoting the relocation of Gazans outside the territory.

If realized, these actions could distort Israel’s legitimate battle against an extremist group into ethnic cleansing, transforming a defensive war of necessity into an aggressive expansionist campaign. Without a coherent alternative plan from the Israeli government, these extreme ideas could potentially materialize, reminiscent of the post–Six Day War settlement movement in the West Bank, which emerged due to actors leveraging governmental indecision rather than intentional design.

Recent polling indicates a significant decline in support for Netanyahu’s Likud Party, suggesting a loss of power in the next election. This political reality likely influenced the cancellation of the war cabinet’s initial meeting on Gaza’s future, following Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s suggestion to avoid such a discussion. Smotrich, a fervent advocate of Israeli settlements, aims to influence Netanyahu’s decisions using the potential collapse of their coalition as leverage.

After successfully canceling a formal discussion in the war cabinet on Gaza’s future, Smotritch then laid out his own solution for Gaza’s future: displacing Palestinians and resetting the Strip with Israelis.

Israel’s government appears to be constrained by its most desperate and ideologically-driven members, whose extreme views and precarious political positions compel them to make bold, divisive decisions. The lack of political cohesion and strategic clarity within Israel’s leadership impedes serious deliberation about post-conflict scenarios in Gaza.

Even if Gallant’s plan is not endorsed, it is imperative for Netanyahu to set a firm boundary now, dispelling any claims by the far right and maintaining the integrity of the war effort. This requires the prime minister to make a public declaration that there will be no forced displacement of Palestinian civilians from Gaza and no establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the Strip. Failure to firmly do so now will not just erode international support for the war but could create a vacuum to be filled by Israeli settlement in Gaza — or worse.

Eitan Charnoff is the CEO of Potomac Strategy, a consultancy advising on geopolitics, security and international cooperation.