As Israel’s war on Gaza escalates with IDF troops now moving to take over Gaza City, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been deploying more extreme language than usual to describe his plans for “total” victory over Hamas. He has eschewed ceasefire talks, and is instead leaning into his expansive vision for a “Greater Israel,” which not only includes an Israeli takeover of Gaza but of neighboring territories too.
His public remarks and media appearances over the last week have caused some to observe that the prime minister may be taking his approach, which is already heavily influenced by the hardline right wing in his cabinet, to an even more maximalist level.
For example, Netanyahu completely dismissed the idea of a political solution for Gaza at a Newsmax conference hosted in Jerusalem last week.
“In the search for an alternative to victory, this idea emerged — what they call a ‘political solution,’ which is nothing more than another term for defeat and surrender. That will not happen,” Netanyahu said in Hebrew.
During the same remarks, Netanyahu appeared to be throwing his own military under the bus, suggesting IDF chiefs who had been calling for the Gaza campaign to end have lost their commitment to “victory.” “I will not give up on victory. The people of Israel will not give up on victory,” Netanyahu proclaimed, alleging that “victory” was now the last word in the army’s lexicon.
Appearing on Israeli media channel i24 last week, Netanyahu also said that Israel was looking for other countries to take in Palestinians, just as Trump had proposed to do back in Spring. “I think that the right thing to do, even according to the laws of war as I know them, is to allow the population to leave, and then you go in with all your might against the enemy who remains there,” Netanyahu said.
During the i24 interview, Netanyahu also endorsed the Greater Israel vision, which calls for Israel to expand to include other Middle Eastern countries. Arab nations widely condemned his comments, alleging that Netanyahu’s support for that idea threatens their security, and risks peace prospects in general.
And at the Newsmax conference, moreover, he also said there was “no starvation” in Gaza. “Hamas needs ozempic,” Netanyahu mused, referring to the popular weight loss drug.
RS spoke with experts about what Netanyahu’s more recent rhetoric means for his political trajectory, and for the future of Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip. Broadly, observers suggest his amped up language points to a grim reality in which Netanyahu’s government has stripped away any pretense of a political solution and is closer than ever to carrying out a maximalist endgame of absolute control over the Gaza strip, with no regard for the Palestinians who live there.
Unpacking Netanyahu's rhetoric
Israeli political analyst Ori Goldberg said Netanyahu, as a political leader, operates on a complex duality: his long-term reign as prime minister gives him a veneer of political stability, but also gives him leeway to make hard, even risky, choices for the sake of Israel’s future.
In this respect, Netanyahu’s recent rhetoric, which Goldberg describes as “more extreme” than usual, showcases his willingness to commit to these high-stakes choices — even if they are irreversible, or otherwise risk Israel's security or international standing.
Netanyahu “is going for broke, he's committed. He doesn't have any other options,” Goldberg observed. “He is playing ‘chicken’ with the international community. He has made his choice and will be happy to let both Israel and Palestine go down in flames.”
Israel is reportedly in talks to send Gazans to South Sudan, and Israel is sending aid to the impoverished country as a likely sweetener. Whether the transfer of Gazans materializes does not matter, said Goldberg.
“It's about making noise,” he charged. “It goes to show that Israel still has some international clout,” and that it has partners it can make political deals with, “even if [it has] to bribe them into it.”
Carol Daniel-Kasbari, Quincy Institute non-resident fellow and senior associate director of the Conflict Resolution Program at the Carter Center, told RS that Netanyahu’s rhetoric “point[s] to an endgame of open-ended Israeli security dominance, shrinking space for a two-state outcome, and a coalition calculus that rewards ideological consistency over diplomatic compromise.”
Daniel-Kasbari said Netanyahu “governs with partners to his right whose agendas prioritize settlement expansion and permanent Israeli control.” Considering this political reality, "rejecting a negotiated track for Gaza and hinting at Gazan ‘emigration’ are not rhetorical flourishes; they’re policy signals,” she said, also highlighting Netanyahu’s historical opposition to a sovereign Palestinian state west of the Jordan river.
Daniel Levy, President of the U.S./Middle East Project, said the Israeli prime minister has always supported this “Greater Israel” vision and cautioned not to over-interpret his comments.
As per the i24 interview, however, Netanyahu now seems to be endorsing an “expansive definition which has been more regularly referenced by [Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel] Smotrich,” Levy pointed out. Smotrich has repeatedly advocated for a Greater Israel that would include parts of Palestine, Syria, and Jordan.
Nevertheless, Levy said Netanyahu has always “been very clear, including presenting bills to the Israeli parliament, that he opposes a Palestinian state, seeks to expand Israel's borders, and he has acted on these intentions, including the intention to annex Palestinian territories.”
“This is indeed a decades-long project," he said.
Will Israel annex Gaza?
Israel is now positioning itself to force Palestinians out of Gaza City, where the IDF, pursuing a plan the Israeli security cabinet approved earlier this month, aims to displace about one million people. To that end, many Israelis are critical of such plans because of their perceived capacity to harm the remaining hostages, further weaken the IDF, and worsen the humanitarian crisis on the ground.
“Will Israel take this next step and carry out crimes against humanity after they have been officially approved by the Israeli government?” Goldberg asked, noting the obvious U.S. complicity — where Washington has unconditionally transferred bombs, guns, ammo, and other supplies necessary for an Israeli military incursion and occupation. “Without being armed by the United States, nothing will happen.”
For its part, Washington has frequently deferred to Jerusalem regarding its possible plans for the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Early this month, Trump said it was “pretty much up to Israel,” to decide whether it would pursue occupying the territory.
Netanyahu said earlier this month that Israel would proceed with this takeover, deeming it “the best way to end the war and the best way to end it speedily."
“If Israel decides to do this, the images will be horrible,” said Goldberg, who doubts that a complete takeover is possible, given the practical and logistical hurdles Israel would need to clear to achieve that goal.
“But then again…Netanyahu is so committed to this course, he has no other option. The Israeli military is desperate for a win,” he added.
“All of this may happen. And if it does, then, there really is no going back.”
