Israeli siege plan for Gaza under scrutiny as U.S. demands urgent change

What has played out in this stretch of the enclave mirrors, at least in part, a controversial siege plan conceived by a former Israeli general to gain full control of northern Gaza and then larger swaths of the enclave. It envisions systematically emptying areas of civilians and starving out — or shooting down — anyone who stays.

The so-called “General’s Plan” is being pushed by some members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right government, despite pushback from the Israeli military, human rights groups and the White House. On Sunday, citing international and U.S. law, top Biden administration officials gave Israel a month to reverse course or risk losing American military assistance.

In an Oct. 13 letter to senior Israeli officials, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and Secretary of State Antony Blinken demanded that Israel surge humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza, hasten deliveries of commercial goods and reaffirm “there will be no Israeli government policy of forced evacuation of civilians from northern to southern Gaza.”

Yousef Khader, a 35-year-old father of three from the Jabalya refugee camp, had believed things in the north were improving. After being forced to flee four times over the last year, he had just made the first repairs to his damaged home, and a few weeks of relative calm had allowed his family to start settling in again.

Now, they have been forced to leave a fifth time. And this time, Khader is worried that Israel wants them gone for good.

“We have endured a year here,” he said. “For us, death is easier than moving to the south.”

The Israel Defense Forces has said it is operating around Jabalya because Hamas operatives have regrouped in the area, a strategy it says it will have to repeat throughout Gaza until a long-term settlement is reached in the war. The military says evacuation orders are issued to protect civilians and has denied firing on those who tried to flee.

Israel officially denies that it is implementing the siege plan, which was presented to government leaders and a parliamentary committee by Giora Eiland, a retired major general and one-time head of Israel’s National Security Council.

But two Israeli officials and a person close to members of the security cabinet confirmed some far-right ministers are advocating for its adoption. Like others in this story, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, in particular, have made no secret of their desire to see Israel permanently occupy Gaza and for Jewish settlements to eventually return there. The Eiland plan gives them a potential path, the officials said.

“It’s what they want,” said one official. “They see it as the best way to achieve their own ends.”

The controversy has exacerbated a split between cabinet hard-liners and the top military ranks. Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has pushed back on those who support the plan, according to a person close to him, and has tried to assure Washington that it will not be implemented.

“For now Gallant is successful,” this person said. “But it’s not clear for how much longer he can stand alone with the army against the mounting political pressures.”

Netanyahu has not publicly endorsed the Eiland plan. A third Israeli official close to the prime minister’s office said media reports that Netanyahu was considering the proposal were “baseless and untrue.”

But Netanyahu may be allowing his far-right colleagues to put parts of it into motion because he depends on their support to keep the government from collapsing, according to Gayil Talshir, a political scientist at Hebrew University. The prime minister is also trying to keep his coalition together to pass a budget before the end of the year, a deadline that could automatically trigger his government’s collapse.

Netanyahu, she said, saw an opportunity before the U.S. election — a window in which President Joe Biden may feel constrained in his criticism of Israel — to see how such a controversial approach would be received by the international community and the Israeli public.

“Part of what is happening in north Gaza now was a trial of the Eiland plan,” Talshir said. “Now that the Americans were very clear that they oppose this, I think we are seeing them pull back.”

The Biden administration’s letter said the amount of aid delivered in Gaza has dropped by more than 50 percent since the spring, and the amount of assistance entering Gaza in September “was the lowest of any month during the last year.” In the first two weeks of October, the United Nations said, no food aid entered northern Gaza at all.

On Tuesday, as the administration letter came to light, U.N. and Israeli authorities said 28 humanitarian trucks had crossed into the north. The Israeli military said Wednesday it had facilitated another 50 trucks with aid donated by Jordan, at Gallant’s direction. But much more is needed, the United States says, calling on Israel to allow at least 350 trucks to enter the Strip each day.

Sam Rose from the U.N. refugee agency said it was “too early to tell” if there had been a reversal of Israel’s policy. “The flow needs to be maintained and increased, and we need safe passage, which requires that more roads are made available for us to use,” he added.

The needs are soaring in the north as the war returns in full force. Overwhelmed hospitals say they are running out of fuel and other basics as waves of wounded pour in; rescue workers say it is too dangerous to reach the dead piled up in the streets.

Israeli hard-liners view the flow of aid as a lifeline for Hamas, allowing the damaged militant group to sell the food for revenue and keep paying thousands of civil servants.

Eiland, in an interview with The Washington Post, said isolating Hamas and completely cutting off supplies to the north was the only way to break the group’s grip on power.

“It is illegal to cause the starvation of civilians,” he conceded. “But it is legal if they are offered a way and time to leave before it begins.”

A week or 10 days should be enough time for families to travel out of the north, Eiland said. He argued that a million people have already fled northern Gaza during the war, and the army could provide help for those who faced difficulties traveling.

“If people choose to stay and die, that is their choice,” he said.

Humanitarian groups have warned Gaza cannot afford another mass displacement, pointing to the already overcrowded conditions in the south. After a recent polio vaccination campaign in the north, the United Nations estimated about half of those who remain there are children.

Human rights groups said forcing families out under the threat of violence and hunger was both illegal and immoral. A group of Israeli organizations this week called on the international community to block the government from “quietly” implementing the proposals.

“The Eiland plan evokes battle tactics of the middle ages,” said Jessica Montell, the head of the HaMoked, a Jerusalem-based civil rights advocacy group. “Laying siege to a civilian population in order to vanquish an enemy stands in blatant contradiction to the foundational principles of the laws of war.”

Khader, the man in Jabalya, rushed his wife, three children and wheelchair-using grandmother to Gaza City last week, but says he will go no farther. They, and tens of thousands like them, are ignoring directives to keep moving toward makeshift encampments in the south.

“I don’t want to live in a tent,” said Khader. “The people of Gaza’s resilience will thwart any displacement plan.”

Balousha reported from Toronto. Miriam Berger in Jaffa, Claire Parker in Ramallah and Annabelle Timsit in London contributed to this report.