The Israeli military campaign in Gaza is entering its most perilous and consequential phase and one that under the guise of security and humanitarian concerns threatens to forcibly uproot the majority of Palestinians from their homeland.
Those who remain, face the grim prospect of confinement in tightly regulated enclaves in the southern part of the Gaza Strip. At the heart of this unfolding strategy is a plan presented as the establishment of “safe zones,” but which in fact appears designed to fundamentally reshape Gaza’s demographic and territorial landscape.
The Israeli government has announced the impending activation of four designated zones in southern Gaza, which it claims will function as humanitarian havens. Palestinians have been ordered to evacuate the north of the Strip and seek refuge in these areas.
Concurrently, the Israeli military is intensifying its ground operations in northern Gaza, with all signals pointing towards a long-term military entrenchment in the region.
The administration of the zones will reportedly be orchestrated through a hybrid model of Israeli oversight and American private-sector management. Among the leading actors is the newly formed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, an entity registered in Switzerland as recently as February 2025 and led by Jake Wood, a former US Army serviceman.
Another participant is Safe Reach Solutions, a US-based firm specialising in logistics and security, which has been tasked with managing aid delivery and logistics within the zones.
Palestinians entering these so-called safe zones will be subjected to stringent Israeli security protocols, including facial recognition technology and biometric screening, ostensibly to prevent infiltration by individuals associated with Hamas or other militant organisations.
Each zone is expected to accommodate between 300,000 and 400,000 displaced individuals, who will receive sparse humanitarian provisions consisting primarily of ready-to-eat food parcels and basic medical supplies, distributed no more than once or twice per month.
Although the plan is framed as an “innovative humanitarian solution,” it raises profound ethical and logistical questions. Why have internationally recognised humanitarian bodies such as the UN Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA, the UN children’s agency UNICEF, and the UN World Food Programme, all with decades of operational experience in Gaza, been sidelined in favour of newly minted and untested private initiatives?
By what criteria will the Israeli authorities distinguish civilians from militants without indiscriminately casting every Palestinian youth as a potential threat? And what safeguards are in place to ensure that the mass movement of families, many including vulnerable children, the elderly, and the wounded, does not devolve into an act of forcible displacement under international law?
Moreover, does this reconfiguration of Gaza signal the collapse of the ceasefire negotiations cloaked in the rhetoric of humanitarian relief but in fact masking a broader strategy of permanent population removal?
On Tuesday, the Israeli media outlet Israel Hayom reported that Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who reflects the policies of the Israeli government, had announced the US endorsement of the new plan. Smotrich contended that Israel’s sustained control over 75 per cent of Gaza, combined with relentless military pressure, could accelerate the disintegration of Hamas.
In comments published by the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth on Monday, he was quoted as stating that “we are destroying everything that remains of Gaza.” He also emphasised Israel’s intention to block all aid into Gaza, asserting that the population would be pushed southwards and eventually to third countries.
As a result, the Israeli cabinet’s decision on Sunday to allow a temporary and narrowly limited delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza should not be misconstrued as a pivot towards addressing its deepening humanitarian catastrophe. Israeli officials clarified that, until the new aid mechanism becomes operational on 24 May, assistance will continue to be routed through pre-existing channels, including the World Central Kitchen.
According to the news website Axios, the resumption of limited aid is intended as a tactical move to relieve mounting international pressure. A statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office framed the decision as a necessary step to enable broader military operations, citing advice from senior military leaders.
The Israeli government clarified that only a minimal quantity of food aid would be permitted to enter Gaza, primarily to stave off famine, a scenario that, if realised, could jeopardise the legitimacy of Operation Gideon’s Chariots, Israel’s codename for its ongoing military campaign.
“To achieve victory, we must not reach the stage of famine, because they [the world powers] will not support us if we reach that point,” Netanyahu said.
Meanwhile, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz confirmed that Israel has contracted an American firm to oversee aid distribution starting on 24 May, stating that the resumption of aid is a week-long interim measure pending the finalisation of new distribution centres, which will be located in southern Gaza.
Given the temporary and inadequate nature of the resumed aid, the United Nations, the European Union, and major humanitarian organisations have characterised the move as no more than “a drop in the ocean.” The growing European criticisms reflect mounting concern over Israel’s and the United States’s attempt to replace long-established humanitarian institutions with what are believed to be politically aligned private enterprises.
The European Union has announced that it will formally revisit the terms of its Association Agreement with Israel, citing serious concerns over the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The proposal to suspend the agreement has already garnered support from more than ten EU member states, including France, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Finland, Portugal, Slovenia, and Sweden.
The legal foundation for such action lies in Article 2 of the agreement, which permits suspension if one party is found to be in grave breach of human rights obligations.
Yet, the path forward remains contentious. Full suspension requires the unanimous consent of all 27 EU states, a difficult threshold given opposition from Germany, Italy, Hungary, Serbia, and Bulgaria.
Despite the mounting global criticisms, international actors continue to wield limited leverage over Netanyahu’s policies, particularly as long as he enjoys strong backing from the Trump administration. With both Israel and the United States accelerating the implementation of the so-called “safe zone” plan in southern Gaza, coupled with the forced evacuation of residents from the northern Gaza Strip, the groundwork is being laid for a prolonged Israeli presence in the north.
This enduring presence, according to Israeli pledges, will remain until Hamas is dismantled, disarmed, and all the Israeli hostages are returned. The coming days may indeed prove pivotal in determining the future of the Palestinians in Gaza.
Amid this intensifying pressure, Hamas is seeking ways to disrupt the implementation of what it views as a plan cloaked in humanitarian rhetoric but fundamentally aimed at enacting forced displacement.
In what appeared to be a tentative trial balloon, the US network CNN reported that an unnamed Hamas official had told its news website that the movement would not oppose the release of seven to nine Israeli hostages in exchange for a 60-day truce and the release of 300 Palestinian prisoners.
According to the report, this proposal would also be contingent upon a partial Israeli military withdrawal to the eastern edge of the Salaheddin Road, a central artery connecting northern and southern Gaza. However, the offer was quickly met with internal dissent, and a prominent Hamas leader refuted the notion of an incremental agreement, warning that Israel was “confusing the situation with fabricated narratives”.
Sami Abu Zuhri, a senior official in Hamas’ Political Bureau, told Al-Aqsa TV, a channel affiliated with the movement, that Hamas remains committed to a comprehensive deal. Such a deal, he emphasised, would necessitate a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, a permanent cessation of hostilities, unfettered entry of humanitarian aid, the lifting of the blockade, and a clear commitment to reconstruction.
Only under these conditions would Hamas consider the full release of all the remaining Israeli hostages, Abu Zuhri said.
“We initiated the release of Israeli soldier Edan Alexander to pave the way for a broader agreement,” Abu Zuhri explained. “But the US administration failed to acknowledge or respond constructively to our gesture.”
Abu Zuhri’s remarks came shortly after US Hostage Affairs Envoy Adam Boehler declared that Hamas must release all the Israeli captives first, without any conditions, if it wishes to bring an end to the war.
Not all within Hamas’ military wing, the Izzeddin Al-Qassam Brigades, were satisfied with the release of Alexander in the absence of any formal agreement with US officials or reliable guarantees from mediators.
Boehler’s uncompromising stance, combined with Israel’s intensifying air campaign in Gaza, described as the most ferocious since the war began and claiming the lives of over 100 Palestinians daily, has stirred discontent among Al-Qassam Brigade fighters on the ground.
Some believe that Alexander’s strategic value was forfeited without achieving any tangible gain.
As Israel escalates its military pressure, the international community appears to be increasingly impotent in halting what many describe as systemic atrocities in Gaza. The conflict is now entering its most dangerous and decisive phase, the laying of the cornerstone for a project of forced displacement.
For Hamas, this means rapidly narrowing options and mounting challenges, while Netanyahu and his government seem convinced that they are closing in on what they describe as “total victory.”
* A version of this article appears in print in the 22 May, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: