Gaza Under Siege and Assassinations: Israel's Policy for Managing the Conflict

What is happening in the Gaza Strip in recent days cannot be interpreted as isolated security events, but rather as part of a calculated trajectory in the Israeli strategy aimed at prolonging the war and reproducing a reality of fear and control: targeted assassinations, drone strikes, and a continuous low-intensity war, accompanied by ongoing destruction of what remains of infrastructure and homes, particularly in the eastern areas of the strip, through bombardment and detonation with explosives, and targeting Palestinians under a loose cover called "military targets." Since Thursday morning, 13 martyrs have fallen, including five children, due to bombardment by the occupation in a series of new violations of the ceasefire. In the past three days, a warplane targeted a young man west of al-Qarara, followed by an assassination attempt in the al-Tuffah neighborhood in Gaza City, then targeting a tent for displaced persons in the al-Mawasi area of Khan Younis, where children were among the martyrs. Israel claims that these operations target "wanted individuals" who are planning imminent attacks, but the facts indicate that these assassinations are nothing more than political messages through fire, with a clear conclusion: there is no safe area in Gaza, and no protection even for the displaced. In this context, the meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former UN envoy Nikolai Mladenov came, who is expected to be appointed as the executive director of the so-called "Peace Council" in the Gaza Strip. During the meeting, Netanyahu emphasized that Hamas must dismantle its weapons, and that the strip should be a "demilitarized zone" according to the plan of U.S. President Donald Trump. According to Haaretz, Israel is preparing for an anticipated announcement from Trump next Monday regarding the establishment of an "International Peace Council" that will manage the Gaza Strip. However, this political movement is not separate from the field escalation, but rather complements it. Many days have passed since the announcement of the ceasefire, but the reality has not changed. The occupying state continued to violate the agreement through blockade and closure of crossings, led by the Rafah crossing. Gaza remains besieged and punished with various tools: a shortage of aid, acute shortages of medicines and vital supplies, and increasing pressure on international organizations operating in the strip. In addition, approximately 450 Palestinians have been martyred due to the ongoing Israeli bombardment of the eastern areas, which constitute about 60% of the strip's area, and are under Israeli army control. The fundamental question here is not limited to whether this escalation is directed against Hamas before moving to the second phase of the understandings, but goes beyond that to a deeper question: Is Israel seeking to establish a political and security fact that it is the only party that decides in Gaza, without a peace council, no international or Arab sponsorship, and no partnership in decision-making? It is likely that what is happening is a bloody affirmation of the occupation's sovereignty over the scene. The majority of the targeted operations are concentrated assassinations of leaders in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and advance messages for any potential negotiation track, or any talk of bringing in a "stabilization force" or an international mechanism. The escalation here is not an alternative to politics, but rather a tool to impose it through force, and it is a preemptive escalation in anticipation of any new arrangements. Israel understands that forcibly disarming the resistance is nothing more than a political pretext, and that what remains of this weapon has become limited in proportion to the immense destruction that has occurred in Gaza. It also understands that going into a comprehensive confrontation to achieve this goal is internationally unacceptable, even with Trump's administration giving Netanyahu a green light for military operations and assassinations. Therefore, it resorts to the tactic of "pressure under fire": calculated assassinations, selective killings, and psychological and social exhaustion, aiming to extract concessions in the second phase, especially regarding arrangements for governance and security in the strip. However, this pressure conceals a deeper goal: to redefine the security reality in Gaza. It is not about disarming immediately, but about turning it into a permanent burden on society, linking any reconstruction or consolidation of the ceasefire to open Israeli security conditions. The city, the camp, the displaced, and the fighter have all become tools in managing the conflict, in which force and assassination are employed as a political pressure paper, in an attempt to generalize a security model based on control and subjugation, rather than any real political horizon. On the other hand, the insistence of Hamas to link disarmament with national consensus raises a real political dilemma, in the context of the deliberate ambiguity surrounding the Israeli-American tracks, which intersect in rejecting any entity or sovereign Palestinian state. This ambiguity essentially serves the Israeli idea that prevailed before October 7: keeping Hamas weak and restrained, but it is now being reshaped in a harsher manner, such that the movement remains in a position of partial control over Gaza, but in a more fragile and weaker state. Here, the question is no longer confined to what Israel wants from Gaza, but what Hamas wants, and what the Palestinians want in general, to dismantle this strategy. The answer cannot be solely military, nor merely rhetorical slogans, but rather a political one par excellence: to invest in the new reality, to seize the few available opportunities, to seriously pursue national unity, and to think from the position of historical responsibility in reconstruction and salvaging what remains of the national project and Palestinian entity, before the existing situation turns into a permanent fate from which there is no escape.