The Israeli decision to reoccupy Gaza represents a serious threat on political, legal, and humanitarian levels, reflecting an escalatory trend that undermines any prospects for peaceful settlement and enshrines the logic of force at the expense of international law and peoples’ rights.

Since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, the Gaza Strip has been under a suffocating siege by air, land, and sea, which many experts consider a form of indirect occupation. However, returning to direct occupation means a radical escalation in the nature of the conflict and a shift towards imposing a new reality by force.

Politically, reoccupying Gaza would ignite a new wave of conflict and instability in the region, as Palestinian factions and the Palestinian people would see it as a clear declaration of canceling any political process and burying the two-state solution. Resistance forces would escalate their operations, potentially dragging the region into wider confrontations beyond Gaza to include the West Bank and possibly other fronts. This decision would also affect Israel’s relations with Arab countries that had taken steps to ease tensions, as these countries would face popular and official pressure to reconsider their positions.

Legally, direct occupation of Gaza constitutes a clear violation of international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit the occupation of others’ territories by force and impose obligations on the occupying power to protect civilians and ensure their basic rights. Given Israel’s record in managing occupied territories, previous experiences indicate that occupation would be accompanied by severe violations such as forced displacement, home demolitions, arbitrary arrests, movement restrictions, and limiting humanitarian aid access, which may amount to war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The decision also raises highly sensitive international dimensions, putting major powers to a real test of their stances on international law and exposing the contradiction between their statements supporting the two-state solution and their practices on the ground, whether through support or silence regarding Israeli policies. Continued silence or mere formal condemnation would weaken the international legal system and send a negative message that force is the only criterion in international relations.

In conclusion, the military reoccupation of Gaza is a dangerous step in a political project with catastrophic consequences for the Palestinian people and regional and international stability. It will deepen Israel’s moral and political isolation in the long term and establish a new phase of conflict whose outcome is difficult to predict amid the absence of any just vision for a solution.