Israel’s Plan to Take All of Gaza: A Comprehensive Analysis
In 2025, Israel’s intentions toward Gaza have crystallized into what appears to be a deliberate plan to fully annex the territory. This small strip of land along the Mediterranean Sea has long been a flashpoint in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but recent developments suggest a shift toward permanent control.
Why Israel Wants Gaza: Resources, Ideology, and Power
Israel’s pursuit of Gaza is driven by a mix of practical, ideological, and strategic factors:
Resources
Gaza’s offshore natural gas reserves, particularly the Gaza Marine field, are a significant prize. Estimated to hold over 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, these reserves could bolster Israel’s energy independence and provide a lucrative export market. Israel has already developed its own offshore fields, such as Leviathan, and integrating Gaza’s resources would solidify its position as a regional energy player. Control over Gaza’s coastline would ensure Israel’s dominance over these untapped reserves.
Ideology
The concept of Greater Israel—a vision of a Jewish state encompassing all lands between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River—underpins much of Israel’s territorial ambition. Rooted in historical and religious claims, this ideology views Gaza as an inseparable part of the Jewish homeland. The current Israeli government, dominated by far-right factions, has increasingly embraced this vision, framing annexation as a fulfillment of national destiny.
Conquest and Security
Israel has long justified its actions in Gaza as a security necessity. Hamas, the militant group governing Gaza since 2007, has launched rocket attacks and border incursions, which Israel cites as evidence of an existential threat. Full control of Gaza, Israeli leaders argue, would neutralize this danger permanently. Beyond security, however, there’s an element of conquest—taking Gaza simply because Israel has the military and political power to do so, especially with minimal international pushback.
Because They Can
Israel’s ability to act is amplified by its superior military capabilities and the unwavering support of the United States. With a blockade in place since 2007 and a history of successful military operations, Israel sees Gaza as a feasible target for annexation, particularly given the lack of unified global opposition.
How Israel Plans to Take Gaza
Israel’s strategy combines military might, political maneuvering, and economic strangulation:
Military Force
Since 2007, Israel has enforced a blockade on Gaza, controlling its airspace, waters, and land borders (except for a small crossing with Egypt). Periodic military operations—like the 2014 Gaza War—have weakened Hamas’s infrastructure and military capacity. A full-scale invasion, supported by Israel’s advanced arsenal, remains a viable option, though it would likely involve heavy casualties and international scrutiny.
Political Maneuvering
Israel has worked to isolate Gaza diplomatically. By branding Hamas a terrorist organization, Israel has gained sympathy from Western allies, particularly the U.S. The Abraham Accords, normalizing ties with several Arab states, have further marginalized the Palestinian cause, reducing regional pressure on Israel to negotiate.
Economic Pressure
The blockade has devastated Gaza’s economy, limiting access to essentials like food, water, and electricity. By controlling the flow of goods and aid, Israel has rendered Gaza increasingly dependent, weakening its ability to resist annexation over time.
The Greater Israel Project and the Clean Break Memo
The Greater Israel Vision
The annexation of Gaza aligns with the Greater Israel project, a long-standing goal among Israeli nationalists. This vision, championed by the current government under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right coalition, seeks to incorporate all Palestinian territories into Israel. Gaza, alongside the West Bank, is seen as a critical piece of this expansionist puzzle.
The Clean Break Memo
The ideological and strategic blueprint for this approach can be traced to the 1996 Clean Break memo, a policy paper authored by neoconservative thinkers like Richard Perle and Douglas Feith for Netanyahu, then in his first term as prime minister. The memo called for Israel to abandon the Oslo peace process and adopt a more assertive stance, including preemptive military action and territorial consolidation. It envisioned Israel securing its borders and reshaping the Middle East to favor its interests—goals that resonate with today’s push for Gaza.
Neocons and Israeli Collaboration
Neoconservatives—U.S.-based intellectuals advocating aggressive foreign policy—worked closely with Israeli leaders to craft this strategy. Figures like Perle and Feith, who later held influential roles in the George W. Bush administration, bridged American and Israeli interests. Their collaboration ensured that U.S. policy would align with Israel’s ambitions, a dynamic that persists today.
U.S. Government Adoption
The Clean Break memo’s influence extends to current U.S. policy. Its emphasis on supporting Israel’s security and regional dominance has been internalized by successive administrations. The memo’s architects helped shape post-9/11 U.S. actions—like the Iraq War—that indirectly bolstered Israel’s position, and its legacy continues to guide America’s Middle East strategy.
The U.S. Administration: Enabling Israel’s Ambitions
Unconditional Support
Under President Joe Biden, the U.S. has maintained its decades-long policy of providing Israel with billions in military aid—over $3.8 billion annually—alongside diplomatic cover. The administration has justified this support as vital to Israel’s self-defense, even as Israel’s actions in Gaza draw accusations of human rights violations. The U.S. routinely vetoes U.N. resolutions critical of Israel, shielding it from global accountability.
Why the U.S. Backs Israel
Several factors explain this stance:
-Strategic Alliance: Israel serves as a reliable U.S. foothold in the Middle East, offering intelligence and military cooperation.
-Domestic Politics: Support for Israel enjoys bipartisan backing, driven by cultural ties (e.g., evangelical Christian voters) and lobbying pressures.
-Ideological Alignment: Many U.S. leaders see Israel as a democratic ally facing similar security challenges, fostering a sense of shared purpose.
What Israel Might Have on U.S. Politicians
While speculative, Israel’s leverage could include:
-Intelligence Sharing: Israel’s robust intelligence network may provide the U.S. with critical data, creating dependency.
-Political Pressure: The threat of losing pro-Israel campaign funding or facing smear campaigns could silence dissent.
-Historical Ties: Decades of alliance have entrenched a sense of obligation among U.S. leaders.
AIPAC and Campaign Funding: The Political Muscle
AIPAC’s Role
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is a powerhouse in U.S. politics, lobbying for pro-Israel policies. Through its political action committees, AIPAC spent over $100 million in the 2024 election cycle, targeting candidates seen as insufficiently supportive of Israel. This financial clout ensures that lawmakers prioritize Israel’s interests.
Influence Tactics
AIPAC’s strategies include:
-Campaign Funding: Donors reward pro-Israel candidates and punish critics, shaping electoral outcomes.
-Congressional Trips: AIPAC organizes visits to Israel, presenting a curated narrative that reinforces support.
-Public Messaging: The group frames criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, stifling debate.
Impact on Policy
This influence has created a political climate where U.S. leaders rarely challenge Israel, even amid controversial actions like the Gaza plan. The fear of losing funding or facing well-funded opponents keeps politicians in line, amplifying Israel’s ability to act with impunity.