Follow us on social

 Netanyahu Ben Gvir

Israel's military is taking over Gaza City, and you'll be paying for it.

White House has been eerily muted on what could be the deadliest turning point in the war

Reporting | QiOSK

The Israeli security cabinet approved a plan early Friday for the military takeover Gaza City, which is the largest population center in the strip — at least it was before Oct. 7 — stopping short of plans to take over the entire enclave.

The implications are huge. Until now, the IDF has been largely engaged in an air war to destroy the perpetrators of the Oct. 7 attacks killing more than 61,000 Gazans, mostly civilians (the toll is likely much higher), injuring hundreds of thousands, destroying 70% of civilian infrastructure and the healthcare system, and blockading the territory leading to mass starvation and more death. But there are still live hostages and Hamas is still operating so this new strategy is supposed to resolve that.

While Israel controls most of the movement on the strip through this air war, this new step would mean putting boots on the ground to control an entire city. Experts including IDF officials say this kind of campaign is nuts. Israel's mostly reservist forces have been stretched and traumatized, the economy too, and protests are starting to rage in the Israeli streets for an end to the war.

A takeover of Gaza, even just its biggest city for now, would put more troops at risk with the invitation of guerrilla warfare, more Gazans will be forced to migrate again from makeshift shelters, more will die. There is no confidence anywhere that Israel wants to bring more food and other assistance into the enclave. Far right leaders have all but said they want to starve the people, expel them from the land. They've already said the quiet part out loud and they hold the most important cards in Benjamin Netanyahu's government right now.

The German government has responded by halting all arms exports to Israel for use in Gaza. “Under these circumstances, the German government will, until further notice, not approve any exports of military equipment that could be used in the Gaza Strip,” Merz said in a government press release, adding that he did not think the military operation will achieve Israel's goals of defeating Hamas and securing the hostages. If anything, critics say, those living hostages are in even more peril now.

The UK has also weighed in this morning. “The Israeli government’s decision to further escalate its offensive in Gaza is wrong, and we urge it to reconsider immediately,” British prime minister Keir Starmer said in a statement. “This action will do nothing to bring an end to this conflict or to help secure the release of the hostages. It will only bring more bloodshed."

So what about the United States, which has largely financed the war with its $4 million a year in military assistance and more than $22 billion since 2023? Trump has reportedly given the green light for Netanyahu's plans, but nothing official has come out of the White House as of this morning.

Trump did say that it was "pretty much up to Israel" when asked by a reporter earlier this week, and said the U.S. would be taking over the humanitarian aid there. His ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, said Washington would be increasing the number of aid hubs by the Global Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) from 4 to 16 which is a nightmare waiting to happen. American contractors, reportedly armed with guns carrying armor-piercing ammunition, are used to manage and security those sites. Over 1,000 desperate Gazans have already been killed there, presumably mostly by IDF, given witness testimony. Contractors who have come forward have described a dystopian hellscape where "war crimes are committed every day." Trump wants to put that on steroids.

If Israeli military start taking ground by clearing Gazans and setting up military posts they will no doubt draw fire and many more will die. If Trump expands these shadowy aid centers which are not helping Gazans, more Americans will be on the ground, too, and in harms' way. What's next, an American military intervention? Al Monitor reported Thursday that "the Pentagon is awaiting approval from the White House to implement plans that would see the U.S. military help funnel additional humanitarian aid into Gaza" referring to plans — not yet confirmed — to provide logistical help to this GHF ramp-up.

The American people won't go for it.


Top image credit: Israel Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Itamar Ben Gvir shake hands as the Israeli government approve Netanyahu's proposal to reappoint Itamar Ben-Gvir as minister of National Security, in the Knesset, Israeli parliament in Jerusaelm, March 19, 2025 REUTERS/Oren Ben Hakoon
Gaza ceasefire collapse expands Israel's endless and boundary-less war
Reporting | QiOSK
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.