Netanyahu's plan to take over Gaza sparks anger and threat of sanctions from allies
The plans, revealed after a marathon meeting with his cabinet, include a total evacuation of Gaza City - said to completed by October 7 this year - after which the north of the strip will effectively be a free-fire zone for Israel's forces in their final attempt to wipe out Hamas.
Netanyahu's new policy has tested close allies as Israel faces accusations of driving Gaza's 2.1 million people close to famine and as its prime minister is indicted for war crimes.
In Israel, families of hostages held by militants in Gaza and opposition leaders condemned Netanyahu for a decision that they said would put hostages' lives at risk, adding: 'We can't leave them in the hands of these monsters any longer.'
Sir Keir Starmer denounced the decision as wrong and urged Israel to reconsider the new offensive, or it will 'bring more bloodshed'. 'What we need is a ceasefire, a surge in humanitarian aid, the release of all hostages by Hamas and a negotiated solution,' he added.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey went further, saying: 'Rather than sitting on its hands and issuing strongly worded statements, the UK government needs to take decisive action. Keir Starmer needs to stop the export of all UK arms to Israel - today - and sanction Netanyahu and his cabinet.'
Germany, a key European ally of Israel, immediately banned the export of weapons to Israel that could be used in Gaza, a move Netanyahu criticised for rewarding Hamas terrorism.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said van would remain in place 'until further notice' after the 'even harsher military action' by the Israeli military made the chances of a ceasefire increasingly difficult.
Elsewhere, Norway's vast sovereign wealth fund is also reviewing its investments in Israeli companies.
Ursula von der Leyen, the EU Commission's president, demanded that the plan to take over Gaza 'must be reconsidered', while EU Council President Antonio Costa added that the plans "must have consequences for EU-Israel relations".
In its response, Belgium summoned the Israeli ambassador for a dressing down, saying its foreign ministry wanted to "express total disapproval of this decision, but also of the continued colonisation... and the desire to annex the West Bank'.
The Netherlands said the Netanyahu plan was 'the wrong move' and was expected to intensify its efforts to impose economic sanctions on Israel by demanding that the EU end its 'association agreement', which gives it some free trade access to Europe.
Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey all condemned Israel's plans for what, effectively, will be the open-ended reoccupation of Gaza, which was last controlled by Israel in 2005. Netanyahu is keen to avoid the use of the term 'occupation' and refers to the planned campaign as a 'takeover'.
However, there was a resounding silence from the US and Mike Huckabee, Trump 's ambassador to Israel, said that some countries appeared to be putting pressure on Israel rather than on the militant group Hamas, whose deadly attack on Israel in 2023 ignited the war.
The Israeli military says it controls around 75 per cent of Gaza. Amir Avivi, a retired Israeli brigadier general, estimated that if the military did take Gaza City, it would give Israel control of about 85 per cent of the strip.
Around 900,000 people now live in Gaza City, including many who have been displaced by the military.
Under international law, an invading nation is responsible for the well-being of the occupied people – regardless of whether the incoming forces want the responsibility.
Netanyahu said on Thursday that Israel did not want to keep the Gaza Strip, but to establish a "security perimeter" and to hand over the territory to Arab forces.
Hamas has warned the Israeli government that seizing control of Gaza City would mean 'sacrificing' the hostages inside the besieged enclave.
The militant group said the Israeli government "does not care about the fate of its hostages', adding in a statement: 'They understand that expanding the aggression means sacrificing them.'
There are an estimated 50 hostages still held in Gaza, of whom Israeli officials believe 20 are alive. Most of those freed so far emerged as a result of diplomatic negotiations. Talks toward a ceasefire that could have seen more hostages released collapsed in July.
Mahmoud Abbas, the president of Palestine, described Netanyahu's plan as 'dangerous' and one that could result in an 'unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe'. He added that it is part of a wider policy of 'genocide, systematic killing, starvation, and siege'.
The president's office made a direct appeal to Mr Trump to 'intervene to halt the implementation of these resolutions and, instead, to fulfil his promise to end the war and pursue lasting peace'.
The Palestinian foreign ministry also warned that the move will push civilians into a 'certain death spiral'.
The ministry accused Israel of waging a war against civilians 'without justification', and condemned the UN Security Council's failure to act.
Netanyahu has said there will be no end to the war until Hamas is disarmed.
A full occupation of Gaza would reverse a 2005 decision in which Israel withdrew thousands of Jewish settlers and its forces, while retaining control over its borders, airspace and utilities.
Hamas-led militants triggered the war when they stormed into Israel on 7 October 2023, killing around 1,200 people and abducting 251 people. Israel's retaliatory campaign has killed over 61,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's Health Ministry.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
34 minutes ago
- Times
Western leaders condemn Israel — yet their armies ask it for advice
No military is more publicly condemned today than the Israel Defence Forces. Yet behind closed doors, few are more studied. Western generals and defence officials routinely seek Israeli briefings, request access to doctrine and tactics, and pursue cooperation on training and technology. These efforts continue even as their political counterparts issue statements of moral outrage and condemnation. The contradiction reflects more than a double standard. It reveals a deeper divide between political perception and military reality, between external messaging and internal understanding, between illusion and experience. Since the war in Gaza began, Israel has hosted dozens of foreign delegations. Military officers and defence officials observe Israeli operations firsthand. They ask technical questions about targeting processes, coordination between air and ground forces, real-time intelligence integration and how combat units distinguish between civilians and combatants under fire. Some return weeks later to formalise cooperation on areas ranging from tunnel warfare to hostage recovery to civilian harm mitigation. Meanwhile, many of their political counterparts deliver rehearsed remarks emphasising restraint, proportionality and civilian protection, often with little connection to the operational context or ground realities they were just briefed on. This is not just political inconsistency. It is strategic dissonance. War is never clean. Urban warfare against a hybrid enemy embedded in civilian areas is among the most complex challenges modern democracies will face. Yet the public discussion is often dominated by expectations of precision and perfection that no military force can guarantee. In many capitals, political performance overrides professional understanding. In Gaza, Hamas constructed more than 300 miles of fortified tunnels beneath civilian infrastructure. It operates from hospitals, schools and mosques — by design, not necessity. Early in the war, the IDF learned a simple rule: if you want to find a tunnel, look beneath a school. If you are searching for an enemy headquarters, start under a mosque. If you suspect an arms depot, check the basement of a hospital. This is not coincidence; it is a consistent, deliberate tactic. Hamas has blocked evacuations, placed command centres inside humanitarian zones and taken hundreds of hostages. These are not side-effects of war. They are deliberate features of a strategy built to paralyse democracies, provoke condemnation and weaponise civilian suffering. The targeting of civilians is not incidental. It is essential to Hamas's operational concept. Many political leaders respond by invoking past conflicts. They reference battles in Aleppo, Fallujah or Raqqa, assuming these comparisons provide meaningful precedent. But most of these conflicts did not involve an adversary intentionally preventing civilians from leaving combat zones. Most did not involve hundreds of hostages dispersed across a dense urban battlefield. Most involved insurgencies, not foreign-backed terrorist armies. Many involved military forces that did not follow the same standards of precision and accountability expected of Israel. These differences matter. Failing to account for them leads to flawed analysis and unrealistic policy prescriptions. These dynamics are not limited to Gaza. Across the region, similar tactics are emerging. In southern Syria, President Sharaa's regime has carried out atrocities against the Druze population while embedded within civilian areas. These acts of cruelty follow the same playbook used by Hamas. Yet few international voices draw consistent lines between them. This silence reflects another gap: the unwillingness to apply standards evenly when the political costs differ. Condemnation is directed at those who can hear it. Those who operate beyond the reach of democratic norms often face no scrutiny at all. While calls for humanitarian concern grow louder, few political leaders press for solutions that would actually reduce civilian harm. Egypt continues to keep its border with Gaza closed, despite being the sole neighbouring country uninvolved in the conflict and capable of providing immediate relief to civilians seeking safety. Evacuation routes remain blocked. Temporary refuge for civilians is politically possible but diplomatically ignored. Not a single major European government or United Nations body has mounted sustained pressure on Cairo to open the Rafah crossing, or to establish a displaced persons or humanitarian zone a few miles into the Sinai. Instead, criticism centres on Israel, the only actor conducting both combat and humanitarian operations in the same battlespace. The imbalance distorts both perception and policy. This is not the first time democracies have confronted hard choices. The wars of the 20th century were waged with heavy costs. Civilian casualties were tragically high. But the principle of civilian protection was strengthened over time, especially with the Geneva Conventions adopted after the Second World War. Those conventions remain the foundation of the modern laws of war. They prohibit intentional attacks on civilians and impose a duty to take feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm. But they do not demand perfection, nor do they outlaw war itself. When adversaries exploit civilians to provoke condemnation and delay operations, the responsibility lies with those who commit the violations — not those who attempt to respond within the law. The numbers bear remembering. Two million civilians died in the Korean War, averaging more than 50,000 per month. More than 10,000 were killed in the liberation of a single city, Mosul. Hundreds of thousands died during military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cities were flattened in the campaign against Isis. These are not historical footnotes. They are reminders of what war has always entailed, especially in dense urban environments. Today, only one military — the IDF — is expected to achieve battlefield success without error, without civilian harm and without criticism, even as it faces enemies who deliberately try to make this impossible. Despite this, militaries around the world continue to seek Israeli knowledge. Governments initiate formal cooperation agreements. Officers train in Israeli facilities. Procurement programs focus on Israeli defence technologies developed through experience in real combat conditions. These are not isolated interactions. They are serious, structured engagements based on the recognition that similar wars may lie ahead. European and Nato militaries understand that future threats may look more like Hamas than like conventional armies. They are preparing accordingly. This is not a blanket condemnation of all political leaders. Many do understand what modern war demands and the reality Israel is confronting. Nor is the political-professional divide a one-way street. War is ultimately the pursuit of political objectives, and in a democracy, those objectives are set by political leaders based on the best advice of their military advisers. At the same time, senior military leaders must understand the domestic, international and geopolitical factors that frame and constrain the use of force. Political leaders cannot speak about war without accounting for context, history, strategy, tactics and operational reality. And military leaders cannot speak about war without understanding the political environment that defines it. The tension between political and professional perspectives is not a flaw. It is a feature of democratic governance. But it must be informed, mutual and honest. Unfortunately, that equilibrium is too often lost. Political leaders too often avoid difficult truths. Some present war as inherently unjust. Others suggest that all violence can be avoided with diplomacy or restraint. Few acknowledge that, in extreme cases, force may be both necessary and lawful. This avoidance does not strengthen democracy. It weakens it. It misleads citizens, erodes deterrence and gives adversaries greater freedom of action. In Israel, such illusions are not possible. Conflict is measured in metres — the distance of homes from hostile territory. Missiles arrive in seconds. Tunnels turn rear areas into front lines. Civilian buildings become military objectives by design. This is not theoretical. It is a daily reality. On October 7, Hamas killed 1,200 Israelis, many through direct atrocities. Adjusted for population, that would be the equivalent of more than 40,000 Americans, or 8,000 Britons, killed in a single day. International law permits self-defence, even in war. Proportionality accounts for the presence of civilians, even when they are unlawfully put at risk by those who violate the laws of war. It requires that civilian harm not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage and that every feasible precaution be taken to minimise that harm. Israel has done both. Democracies must regain strategic clarity. They cannot afford to treat war as a morality play while military officers prepare for reality. They must explain to their populations that war, when necessary, is not only legal but at times morally required. They must recognise that the expectations placed on allies today may become the burdens they bear tomorrow. The next war will not wait for consensus. It will demand readiness, resolve and truth. If democratic leaders continue to separate what they know privately from what they say publicly, the result will not be greater morality. It will be greater suffering and failure. Silence will not deter enemies. Illusion will not protect civilians. And condemnation, without context or consistency, will not produce peace. The hard lessons of war must be faced, not avoided. Military professionals understand this. It is time for political leaders to do the same. General Yoav Gallant, former Israeli minister of defence and decorated IDF commander, has spent nearly five decades at the forefront of Israel's national defence. John Spencer is executive director of the Urban Warfare Institute and co-author of Understanding Urban Warfare. He has advised senior US army leaders through strategic roles from the Pentagon to West Point. You can follow him on X.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US, EU, and Ukrainian officials to meet in UK on Saturday ahead of Trump-Putin meeting
LONDON, Aug 9 (Reuters) - British foreign minister David Lammy and U.S. Vice President JD Vance will meet Ukrainian and European allies in Britain on Saturday to discuss President Donald Trump's push for peace in Ukraine, a spokesperson for Downing Street said. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer spoke to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy ahead of the security meeting, the spokesperson said. Starmer and Zelenskyy discussed Trump's proposals for ending the war in Ukraine ahead of talks with his Russian counterpart on August 15 in Alaska. "The Prime Minister spoke to President Zelenskyy of Ukraine this morning. They looked ahead to the meeting of National Security Advisers from Europe, Ukraine and the United States taking place today, hosted by the UK Foreign Secretary and US Vice President," the spokesperson said. "They agreed this would be a vital forum to discuss progress towards securing a just and lasting peace."
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
US blames Macron for collapsed Gaza peace talks
The US has blamed France for the collapse in ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas due to its decision to recognise Palestine as a state. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said the Palestinian terror group was 'emboldened' by Emmanuel Macron's decision last month and it led to a breakdown in talks that hoped to finally yield an end to the 22-month war. 'Talks with Hamas fell apart on the day Macron made the unilateral decision that he's going to recognise the Palestinian state,' Mr Rubio said in an interview with the Catholic Eternal Word Television Network. On July 24, France said it would recognise the state of Palestine at the UN General Assembly in September, becoming the first G7 country and member of the UN Security Council to do so. Mr Rubio at the time said the US 'strongly rejects' the 'reckless' decision and called it a 'slap in the face' to the victims of Hamas's attack on Oct 7. The same day, Israel withdrew its negotiations from the Doha talks after receiving Hamas's latest response to its ceasefire proposal, bringing to an end the longest round of negotiations since the war started in October 2023. Steve Witkoff, Donald Trump's Middle East envoy, also announced the return of US negotiators, saying Hamas 'clearly shows a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire'. Following France's move, Sir Keir Starmer declared Britain would recognise Palestine in September unless Israel makes peace in Gaza, which Israel condemned as a 'reward for Hamas'. Canada also pledged to recognise Palestinian statehood and several other Western countries indicating they were considering following suit. Most UN members already recognise the State of Palestine. On Friday, Mr Rubio accused such countries of offering Hamas a chance to claim victory. 'And then you have other people come forward, other countries say, 'well, if there is not a ceasefire by September, we're going to recognise a Palestinian state.' If I'm Hamas, I'd basically conclude, 'let's not do a ceasefire, we can be rewarded, we can claim it as a victory,'' Mr Rubio said. 'So those messages, while largely symbolic in their minds, actually have made it harder to get peace and harder to achieve a deal with Hamas. They feel emboldened,' he added. JD Vance, the US vice-president, said on Friday that the US has 'no plans' to recognise the Palestinian state. On his summer holiday to the UK, he also told Foreign Secretary David Lammy that the UK and US have 'disagreements' on Gaza. It comes after Israel approved a plan on Thursday which will, in effect, lead to the full occupation of Gaza, sparking international condemnation, including from Sir Keir who said the expanded offensive would 'only bring more bloodshed'. The decision has also provoked a bitter split with the army, which opposes the plan and has warned that it would stretch an already exhausted army, and endanger Israeli hostages still held by Hamas. Mr Netanyahu dismissed the IDF's concerns after a heated 10-hour meeting on Friday and told troops to 'prepare' for the invasion of Gaza city. Germany on Friday suspended all arms deliveries to Israel in an unexpectedly stern response to the takeover plan, bolstering Israel's growing isolation on the world stage over its conduct in the war-shattered Strip. Britain on Saturday pledged £8.5 million in additional humanitarian aid for Gaza, which it said has the potential to reach thousands 'if Israel allows the UN and other agencies to operate at the scale needed'. Calling on Israel to 'reverse' its decision to expand military operations, it also demanded more aid be allowed into the Strip as reports of widespread starvation grow. 'It is unacceptable that so much aid is waiting at the border – the UK is ready to provide more through our partners, and we demand that the Government of Israel allows more aid in safely and securely,' Jenny Chapman, the Minister for International Development, said.
