Posted on 08/07/2025 10:04:16 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Does "control" equal "occupation"? Benjamin Netanyahu took some care in choosing his words in a Fox News interview, even as his Cabinet came together to discuss next steps in Gaza. He emphasized the need to "liberate" both Gazans and Israelis from Hamas' annihilationist and genocidal threat.
That certainly will require "control," and perhaps that means at least a transitional "occupation." But Netanyahu doesn't use the O-word here:
Mr. Netanyahu made the comments in an interview with Fox News ahead of a security cabinet meeting to discuss a proposal to expand military operations in Gaza. They came as talks to achieve a cease-fire and the release of the hostages have hit an impasse, with Israeli and Hamas officials blaming each other for the deadlock.
When asked whether Israel would take over all of Gaza, he responded, “We intend to.”
Mr. Netanyahu said the move would “assure our security,” remove Hamas from power, and would enable the transfer of the civilian administration of Gaza to another party.
“We want to liberate ourselves and the people of Gaza from the awful terror of Hamas,” he said in an excerpt from the interview, without providing details on any planned operation.
Is there a difference between "control" and "occupation"? There may be a difference in the legal sense, as well as in the operational sense. The Israelis are already sensitive about the term "occupation" in the West Bank, and seizing more territory for a long-term occupation of Gaza is already an unpopular idea. Netanyahu's language seems intent on signaling a desire for only an operational occupation, one that would end as soon as Hamas either capitulates and leaves, or gets destroyed.
Later in the interview, Netanyahu told Fox that the 'control' would be temporary:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel plans to take control of Gaza, but that it does not intend to maintain permanent control over it in a Thursday interview with Fox News.
"We don't wanna keep it. We want to have a security perimeter, and we don't want to govern it. We want to give it to Arab forces that will govern it properly and not threaten us."
So yes, Netanyahu envisions only an operational occupation of limited time. The problem with that is that there is no real way to estimate how long it will take to eliminate Hamas, let alone find and free the hostages. Even an operational occupation could stretch out for years, given the fortifications constructed by Hamas over the last 20 years.
That won't be popular with Israelis, largely for those reasons but for others as well. The IDF's top commander opposes the idea and doesn't seem interested in splitting hairs about the various nuances of "control." Nor is Eyal Zamir about to go quietly, as some in Netanyahu's office apparently suggested:
Speaking during an assessment with the military’s top brass on Thursday, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir said: “A culture of disagreement is an inseparable part of the history of the people of Israel; it is a vital component of the Israel Defense Forces’ organizational culture, both internally and externally.”
“We will continue to express our positions without fear, in a substantive, independent, and professional manner,” he added. ...
According to Hebrew media reports, he warned that “occupying the Strip would drag Israel into a black hole — taking responsibility for two million Palestinians, requiring a yearslong clearing operation, exposing soldiers to guerrilla warfare and, most dangerously, jeopardizing the hostages.”
Sources in the Prime Minister’s Office have suggested that if Zamir objects to the plan to occupy Gaza, he can resign as IDF chief.
“We are not dealing with theory; we are dealing with matters of life and death, with the defense of the state, and we do so while looking directly into the eyes of our soldiers and the citizens of the country,” Zamir said during the Thursday morning assessment, the army said.
Hostage families also oppose such a strategy, also for understandable reasons:
Israel’s security cabinet meeting to vote on whether to move forward with a full-scale military occupation of the Gaza Strip has begun, according to Channel 12. ...
Outside the meeting, protesters rally against the proposed move to expand the military operation, which they say will risk the lives of hostages held in the Gaza Strip.
Netanyahu faces a tough choice. Israelis want Hamas eliminated, but don't want to fight the war that would deliver that kind of outcome. That's understandable, because they would either have to fight that war with total-war tactics and create massive civilian casualties, or drag out targeted urban combat for months and create significant casualties in an already stretched-out IDF.
Netanyahu got better news on the northern front today. Lebanese media reported that the government in Beirut has approved a US proposal to fully disarm Hezbollah and evict them from the sub-Litani and Bekaa Valley regions, which would allow Israel to withdraw any remaining forces back into northern Israel. Hezbollah walked out of the discussion, which apparently didn't bother the other participants:
Lebanese media reports that the cabinet session discussing the disarmament of Hezbollah was suspended after five ministers —representing Hezbollah, its ally the Amal Movement, and an independent Shiite minister — walked out in protest.
However, Lebanese Information Minister Paul Morcos announces afterward that the government approved the list of objectives presented on the first page of the American mediator’s proposal to Lebanon, which includes keeping all weapons under state control and disarming groups operating outside state structures, including Hezbollah.
If Hezbollah gets disarmed and dislocated, that cuts off another potential source of support for Hamas, no matter how unrealistic it might be to expect any help at this point. It could also put an end to nearly five decades of enmity between Lebanon and Israel, allowing the IDF to focus more on terrorism on Israel's other borders.
Update: I had to do a U-turn on the "U-word." I meant "O-word." Sorry!
They can play all the semantic games they want. The games are for domestic consumption inside Israel. As long as they take care of their business they can call it a county fair for all I care
CC
In my mind, taking control of Gaza would involve nukes.
Speaking during an assessment with the military’s top brass on Thursday, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir said: “A culture of disagreement is an inseparable part of the history of the people of Israel; it is a vital component of the Israel Defense Forces’ organizational culture, both internally and externally.”
Although your suggestion would certainly accelerate the ongoing genocide of the Gazans, it would be like Connecticut nuking Queens and Manhattan. There would be no way to avoid the political or radiative blow back.
I don’t know where Amir gets his images, but living in Israel, he has sources.
I can’t figure out how to post the video clips but here are a couple at night. The support is MASSIVE.
https://t.me/beholdisraelchannel/60935
https://t.me/beholdisraelchannel/60931
Men, the perfect target rich environment.
There is no ongoing genocide of Gazans.
But you’re right that the nuclear fallout would be very detrimental to Israel.
Nukes are not an option.
The Gazans are Hamas. They need to take back the land that God gave them.
You same your screen name.
You shame your screen name
The palistinians have shown time and again they cannot live in a civilized world. This goes back to Arafat and his PLO.
It wouldn't surprise me if King George used these ⬆️ very words when speaking of the Minutemen.
There is no such thing as a “palestinian”, there is no such place as “palestine”. It is not, and has never BEEN a sovereign nation.
Why the world “leaders” think they must tiptoe around these filthy invaders confuses the hell out of me.
Gaza should have been annexed after the Six Day War.
There is no ongoing genocide of Gazans.
**************
Yeah, right.(Sarcasm)
It’s all about the dam....elites needed the land and started a war to get it....
Well, aside from what hamas is trying.
So who’s committing the genocide?
Israel who is overseeing humanitarian aid and doing food deliveries? And warning people when they’re going to take military action against hamas to the civilians so they can clear out and be safe.
Or hamas who is stealing the food aid, stuffing themselves with it and selling the rest back to the Gazans for extortionate prices to fund their terror activities? Or who are starving the Israeli prisoners and forcing them to dig their own grave?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.