Israel may be on the verge of declaring sovereignty over parts of the Gaza Strip. According to Israeli media reports, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu presented a small group of ministers with a plan to gradually annex parts of Gaza as a means of pressuring Hamas into a hostage deal. 

Why it matters: 

No Israeli government has taken such a step since Israel conquered the Gaza Strip in 1967. Unlike military occupation (the mechanism for Israel’s control in Gaza until the 2005 disengagement), annexing territory permanently alters its legal status. It would constitute a formal declaration that Israel views the area as an inseparable part of the state. 

Understanding the plan:

The plan reportedly proposed by Netanyahu calls for the government to declare its intention to begin annexing parts of Gaza unless Hamas agrees to Israel’s proposed hostage deal. If Hamas does not acquiesce, Israel would immediately annex the narrow buffer zone currently held by the IDF along Gaza’s border with Israel. It would then gradually begin declaring sovereignty over the rest of the strip, beginning with the parts of northern Gaza adjacent to Ashekon and Sderot, with Hamas presumably able to halt the process by acceding to Israel’s demands. 

Political feasibility:

If Netanyahu genuinely decides to move forward with Gaza annexation, the procedural hurdle is low. All it would take is a government vote for Israel to annex territory, meaning that it can happen immediately despite the Knesset being on recess until October. In theory, a sovereignty declaration could also be carried out by means of Knesset legislation. 

Undoing annexation, however, is much more difficult. According to a law passed in 2014, Israel can only renounce sovereignty over territory by means of a two-thirds supermajority in the Knesset (80 MKs) or a national referendum. Neither mechanism has ever been used.

Gaza annexation enjoys broad support in Netanyahu’s government. Such a step would likely be enthusiastically welcomed by most Likud, Otzma Yehudit, and Religious Zionism members—indicative of the substantial political shift that has taken place in Israel since October 7. In the past, calls to establish a permanent Israeli presence in Gaza were widely viewed as fringe. 

President Trump’s positioning:

Though not confirmed, this annexation plan reportedly has the support of President Donald Trump. It’s possible that Netanyahu and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer raised annexation as an option in consultations with U.S. officials amid last week’s breakdown in the hostage talks. With the administration blaming Hamas for hardening its stance for the impasse, Trump appeared to be giving up on a hostage deal last week, relieving any pressure the administration was previously placing on Israel to end the war. 

It is unlikely that Netanyahu would propose or move forward with Gaza annexation without a green light from the White House. 

Netanyahu’s calculations:

Assuming the reports are true, there are two factors that explain Netanyahu’s decision to embrace Gaza annexation.

• The strategic rationale: Right-wing pundits and politicians argue that Hamas would see annexation as a real blow to their aspirations and legitimacy—unlike the dismantling of their regime, the destruction of Gaza, and the suffering of Palestinians, all of which failed to shake their resolve. According to this view, Hamas values land above all and threatening or implementing annexation will cause them to buckle and accept defeat. 
• The political rationale: Endorsing annexation serves Netanyahu’s domestic political interests. It is an invaluable gift to Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, both of whom have a deep ideological commitment to reestablishing Jewish settlements in Gaza. Both far-right leaders have threatened to quit the government if Netanyahu ends the war. Netanyahu’s recent decision to resume humanitarian aid to Gaza behind their backs increased the possibility of a coalition crisis. The reported annexation proposal has quelled such concerns, as alluded to recently by Smotrich. 

Implications:

There are several likely outcomes should Netanyahu endorse the annexation of Gazan territory:

• Political: It will make the possibility of Smotrich and Ben Gvir bringing down Netanyahu’s government more remote and help cement the Likud’s alliance with the far right in the coming years.
• Diplomatic: It will initiate a firestorm of condemnations from Jerusalem’s closest partners in the West and the Arab world, symbolically and substantively tarnishing Israel’s standing. Even if carried out in coordination with the Trump administration, it would be rejected by large parts of the U.S. political establishment and contribute to the deterioration of bipartisan support for U.S.-Israel relations. A conceivable positive outcome would be Saudi Arabia stepping in to thwart annexation in exchange for normalization as the UAE did in 2020, although this seems unlikely in the absence of a declared end to the war in Gaza and an Israeli commitment to eventual Palestinian statehood—a non-starter for Netanyahu.
• Security: Formalizing and entrenching Israeli control over large swaths of Gaza could pose a tremendous long-term burden on Israel’s security apparatus, depending on the extent of annexation. It may result in the incorporation of large numbers of Gazans within Israeli territory or their involuntary expulsion from the strip.
  
• Strategic: Any diplomatic setback for Israel is a win for Hamas. Contrary to the strategic rationale cited above, the terror group would likely embrace an Israeli sovereignty declaration as a self-defeating measure that bolsters the “resistance” narrative both within Palestinian society and on the world stage. If Israel formally precludes giving the Palestinians anything through negotiations, it strengthens the hand of those advocating for violence and terrorism.