Intense Conflict in Gaza: Israel's Defense Minister Expresses Disapproval for Indefinite Military Governance

In the Wake of Strife, Gaza's Future Remains Unclear

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has pushed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's administration to establish a post-war governance plan for the Gaza Strip, expressing concern about Israel's potential long-term military rule over the territory.

During a press conference, Gallant emphasized the need for a new Palestinian administration separate from Hamas to govern Gaza, but claimed to have received no response from various Israeli cabinet forums. He deemed Israel's military and civilian governance in Gaza as a negative and dangerous option for the state.

Gallant's comments came mere hours after Netanyahu stated that Hamas' elimination must be pursued without excuses before discussing post-war plans. Netanyahu, under pressure to secure a ceasefire deal with Hamas and bring back the captives still held in Gaza, has been hesitant to discuss post-war plans for several months.

When Netanyahu spoke about the issue in February, he advocated for Israel to maintain security control over both the occupied West Bank and Gaza after the war. He proposed that Israel would have a presence along the Gaza-Egypt border, including at the Rafah crossing, and replace Hamas with local representatives who are not affiliated with terrorist countries or groups.

The defense minister's remarks put him at odds with far-right ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, who criticized Gallant for his alleged failures.

Meanwhile, Bahrain has shown interest in being part of an Arab multinational force that would ensure security in Gaza once the conflict ends. According to a US official familiar with the Biden administration's plans, the US has approached multiple regional countries, including Egypt, Morocco, and the UAE, to join the multinational force that would fill the security void in Gaza until a Palestinian governing body can be formed.

However, the UAE has ruled out participating in the administration of Gaza, stating that they will not provide cover for Israel's actions. The increased tensions between Israel and Gaza have resulted in a complete siege and deprivation of basic necessities for the enclave, coupled with a devastating bombing campaign by Israel.

A Diverse Array of Possible Solutions

Currently, several proposals for the post-war governance of Gaza reflect profound disagreements among key actors and varying visions for the territory's future. The absence of a widely accepted plan has given rise to various suggestions from international, regional, and local stakeholders.

Arab League Plan: An initial emphasis on six-month reconstruction under a temporary technocratic committee, excluding Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, followed by a full Israeli military withdrawal and long-term reconstruction. This plan has the support of several European countries and is based on earlier ceasefire agreements[3].
US and Gulf State Proposals: A multitude of alternative governance frameworks intended to prevent a return to Hamas rule and to establish a new, stable administration. However, details remain ambiguous, and there is concern about the lack of a comprehensive plan that could result in prolonged Israeli occupation or empower far-right Israeli ambitions for annexation and displacement[1].
UN and Aid Agency Stance: Insistence on humanitarian operations remaining neutral and impartial, refusing to participate in any aid mechanism controlled by Israel. The UN-led aid distribution, halted by Israel earlier in 2025, is considered essential by humanitarian agencies, who denounce Israeli-run aid systems as insufficient and politically motivated[2][4].
Trump's Proposal: A US-led plan to take control of and "own" Gaza, overseeing reconstruction, providing jobs and housing, clearing rubble and unexploded ordnance, and rejecting any notion of forced displacement or loss of Palestinian sovereignty[5][3].
Netanyahu's Approach: An intent to establish total Israeli military control of the Gaza Strip with no clear successor government, and possible annexation[2][4][1].
Gallant's Plan: The establishment of a local Palestinian administration, separate from Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, to govern Gaza, without favoring long-term Israeli civilian or military control[1][2].

The lack of a unified post-war governance plan for Gaza continues to foster uncertainty, with competing proposals from international, regional, and Israeli actors. Netanyahu advocates Israeli military control with no clear successor government, while Gallant proposes a local administration under international oversight to avoid long-term Israeli rule.

References:

[1] "Israel should address Gaza crisis once and for all, says Benjamin Netanyahu critic," Middle East Eye[2] "Defense Minister Yoav Gallant: "I've Put Forward a Clear Plan - I Require Everyone to Vote on It'" Ynetnews[3] "Arab League offers peace plan for Israel-Palestine," Al Jazeera[4] "Israel blocks UN-led aid to Gaza," Al Jazeera[5] "Trump wants to personally take over Gaza Strip, leaked White House document reveals," Middle East Eye

The defense minister's proposed plan involves establishing a local Palestinian administration, separate from Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, to govern Gaza without favoring long-term Israeli civilian or military control.
Netanyahu, on the other hand, advocates for Israel to maintain total military control of the Gaza Strip with no clear successor government.
The Arab League's plan suggests a six-month reconstruction under a temporary technocratic committee, excluding Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, followed by a full Israeli military withdrawal and long-term reconstruction.
The US and Gulf States have proposed alternative governance frameworks to prevent a return to Hamas rule and establish a new, stable administration, but there are concerns about the lack of a comprehensive plan that could result in prolonged Israeli occupation or empower far-right Israeli ambitions.
The UN and aid agencies insist on humanitarian operations remaining neutral and impartial, refusing to participate in any aid mechanism controlled by Israel, a stance that considers UN-led aid distribution as essential for humanitarian agencies.