The question of Gaza's status has been one of the most contentious issues in modern Middle Eastern politics, carrying profound legal, humanitarian, and moral weight. Nearly two decades after Israel's unilateral withdrawal in 2005, the Strip remains under a form of remote control that the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and numerous human rights organisations still classify as occupation. Recent developments, including Israel's August 2025 security cabinet decision to assume direct military control over Gaza City, have revived fears of a full-scale re-occupation of the territory. Proponents of the plan argue it is a necessary measure to dismantle Hamas, secure the release of hostages, and prevent further attacks on Israel. Yet such a move raises serious concerns under international law and risks deepening one of the most severe humanitarian crises in the world.

This article examines why the re-occupation of Gaza is wrong, focusing on its incompatibility with international legal standards, the likely exacerbation of humanitarian suffering, and the long-term strategic and moral consequences for both Palestinians and Israelis. Drawing on recent rulings by the ICJ, established principles of the Geneva Conventions, and documented realities on the ground, it explores how renewed military control could lead to widespread displacement, further environmental destruction, and diplomatic isolation. By addressing both the legal framework and the human realities, the analysis underscores that a political and humanitarian solution, not military re-occupation, is the only viable path towards lasting peace and security.

1. Context and current developments

In August 2025, Israel's security cabinet approved a plan to assume military control over Gaza City, part of a broader escalation that may lead to a full re-occupation of the Gaza Strip. The intention, as stated by Prime Minister Netanyahu, is to dismantle Hamas, recover hostages, and eventually transfer administration to unspecified Arab authorities. However, the move has provoked serious concern, with critics highlighting risks to remaining hostages, widespread displacement, and the deepening of Gaza's humanitarian disaster. UN officials and other countries condemned the plan as an unlawful and dangerous escalation. 

2. Legal Implications

A. Occupation and international law

• Long-term occupation: Although Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, many legal bodies, including the UN, International Criminal Court, and ICJ, maintain that Gaza remained under occupation. This is due to Israel's extensive control over its airspace, maritime boundaries, borders, and infrastructural systems.
• ICJ's advisory opinion (July 2024): The International Court of Justice declared Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, including Gaza, as unlawful. The court obliges Israel to end the occupation, halt settlement expansion, withdraw settlements, pay reparations, and refrain from exploiting resources. States are urged not to recognise or aid Israel's continued presence.

B. Geneva conventions and settlements

• Prohibitions under the Fourth Geneva Convention: Article 49 forbids the occupying power from forcibly transferring its civilian population into occupied territory. Settlements in such territories are widely deemed illegal under international law.
• Obligation to deliver humanitarian assistance: Under International Humanitarian Law, an occupying power must ensure that the basic needs of the occupied population, such as food and water, are met. This duty further reinforces obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

C. Human rights violations and environmental law

• Systematic violations: Amnesty International and other groups point to human rights violations and systemic discrimination, which may amount to laws of apartheid, exacerbated by the occupation.
• Environmental destruction: Military actions have devastated Gaza's agriculture, infrastructure, water, and environment. The widespread damage may constitute the war crime of ecocide under the Rome Statute.

D. Recent Israeli Supreme Court ruling

• The Israeli Supreme Court reaffirmed that Israel bears obligations under IHL to allow, and, possibly, facilitate humanitarian aid into Gaza. Its judgement hinges on recognising the potential applicability of the law of belligerent occupation to the Strip.

3. Humanitarian implications

A. Civilian safety and displacement

• Mass displacement: The plan could displace up to one million Palestinians, most of whom are already internally displaced within Gaza.
• Civilian casualties: Over 61,000 Palestinians, many women and children, have already died in the illegal invasion of Gaza.

B. Hostage crisis

• Risk to hostages: Critics argue the occupation plan could endanger the lives of the few remaining hostages held by Hamas, undermining rather than aiding rescue efforts.

C. Escalation of the humanitarian crisis

• Worsened conditions: The occupation would intensify Gaza's humanitarian catastrophe, deepening the existing famine, infrastructure collapse, and shortages of necessities.
• Environmental collapse: Gaza's environment is already devastated, collapsed sewage systems, polluted water, destroyed farmland and forests, and toxic debris. The occupation threatens to compound these crises.

D. Moral and strategic costs

• International isolation: The plan risks isolating Israel diplomatically, damaging the prospects for peace and a two‑state solution.
• Internal dissent: There is rising opposition within Israel, including from military leadership, who warn the operation could be costly in both human and strategic terms.

 4. Moral downfall and the potential for further hate

The re-occupation of Gaza carries not only tangible humanitarian and legal consequences but also profound moral implications. Military occupation inevitably positions one society as the master over another, eroding ethical boundaries and normalising systemic discrimination, collective punishment, and the dehumanisation of the occupied. History demonstrates that prolonged control over another people leads to moral corrosion within the occupying society itself, where extraordinary measures become routine, and compassion for the suffering of the "other" diminishes.

For Palestinians, renewed occupation would deepen the trauma of dispossession, displacement, and daily indignity. This fosters not only grief but a combustible sense of injustice, the kind that fuels resistance movements and intergenerational animosity. Children growing up in such conditions are far more likely to inherit a legacy of mistrust and resentment towards those seen as responsible for their suffering. Conversely, within Israel, the normalisation of controlling another people through force risks entrenching a siege mentality, making peace even more elusive.

The moral cost is therefore twofold: the occupation diminishes the humanity of the occupied by denying them dignity and autonomy, and it corrodes the moral compass of the occupier by habituating it to oppression. This dynamic, in turn, perpetuates cycles of hostility, radicalisation, and retaliation, ensuring that reconciliation becomes harder with each passing year.

5. Concluding remarks

The proposed re‑occupation of Gaza is fraught with deeply worrying legal and humanitarian ramifications. It flies in the face of clear international legal rulings, risks further human suffering, and jeopardises any path toward sustainable peace. International governments have voiced condemnation and emphasised adherence to international law, protection of civilians, and the imperative of a political resolution grounded in a two‑state solution.

An enduring solution must centre on humanitarian relief, negotiation, and adherence to international legal norms, not renewed military occupation. Israel has a clear obligation under international law to immediately withdraw from Gaza, as affirmed by the ICJ's 2024 advisory opinion and the Fourth Geneva Convention. It must also pay full reparations for the destruction of infrastructure, environmental damage, loss of life, and economic harm, following established principles of state responsibility. Beyond material compensation, Israel should issue a formal public apology acknowledging the illegality of the occupation, the suffering caused and commit to guarantees of non-repetition, including ending the blockade, respecting Palestinian self-determination, and accepting third-party monitoring. These steps are essential for justice, reconciliation, and the foundation of a sustainable peace.

Professor David Zammit serves as both a lecturer and the Rector of Pro Deo International University in Italy. He has been actively engaged in the field of education for the past 35 years. Throughout his career, he has delivered lectures in various countries and has participated as a speaker at numerous symposia.