Israeli professor reflects on "Generals’ Plan" to clear northern Gaza

By Roberto Cetera

While media attention has been focused on Lebanon and the confrontation with Iran, in recent days, the Israeli army has resumed heavy bombardment of the northern Gaza Strip, causing numerous civilian casualties. This grave situation also raises concerns for the safety of the Christian community taking refuge in the Holy Family parish, now just a few kilometres from the advancing Israeli troops.

Some observers believe this is the beginning of the “Generals' Plan” - a siege and forced evacuation strategy for northern Gaza, outlined by former Israeli general Giora Eiland in an interview with The Times of Israel as early as last April.

The plan was presented to the parliamentary Foreign and Defence Committee by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last September.

L'Osservatore Romano spoke with Professor Idan Landau from Tel Aviv University, who has studied and written about the issue in several Israeli publications.

Professor Landau, could you briefly explain what the “Generals' Plan” entails?

The "Generals' Plan" was disclosed last September. Its goal is to empty northern Gaza of its some 300,000-strong population—about a third of Gaza's total population. In the first phase, the Israeli army would inform everyone in the area that they have one week to evacuate southward via two humanitarian corridors. In the second phase, after this week, the entire area would be declared a “closed military zone.” Anyone remaining would be considered an enemy combatant and killed unless they surrendered. A total siege would then be imposed on the entire area, further isolating it and intensifying the food and health crisis.

Professor, General Eiland's proposed plan was presented to the government last April and not fully approved. Why do you think it’s now being implemented? What ongoing military actions would prove this?

My impression is that, despite official denials, the Israeli military is implementing a version quite close to the original plan. Soldiers on the ground confirm this to journalists. Many civilians have been killed in recent days, and the siege on northern Gaza is ongoing. Dozens of witnesses from the cities of Jabalia, Beit Hanoun, and Beit Lahia report unprecedented levels of destruction, whole neighbourhoods levelled, and attacks on shelters to flush out those seeking protection. Massacres happen daily: on October 29, the Israeli air force heavily bombed densely populated buildings in Beit Lahia, killing 250 people, half of whom remain buried under the rubble. I don’t think there’s any doubt the plan has become operational. Parallel to the destruction, the IDF is pushing displaced people toward the south. However, many resist crossing the Netzarim corridor out of fear they may never return.

How many people are affected by the forced evacuation plan?

Before October 5, 2024—the estimated start date of the operation—between 300,000 and 400,000 people lived in the enclave. Now, about 100,000 remain. However, the IDF is determined to leave none behind. It is quite clear that all of this has nothing to do with the stated intention to capture remaining Hamas leaders and destroy their bases; international humanitarian law does not permit such military operations.

The plan would involve not only military pressure but also the suspension of food, fuel, energy, and water supplies. Wouldn’t this also conflict with international humanitarian law?

Allow me to object to your use of the conditional tense. It is not "would involve" but "involves"; not "would conflict" but "does conflict." For a month now, no food or water has entered northern Gaza, with limited supplies allowed only for the Kamal Adwan hospital. Every day, all United Nations agencies and humanitarian organizations report that the humanitarian situation is now catastrophic. I believe there can be no doubt regarding the nature of this operation in terms of international humanitarian law, which is why the Israeli government tends to downplay its real scope.

So far, the Israeli government has not expressed a clear or definitive position on Gaza's future. Do you think this operation is establishing a future arrangement, at least for northern Gaza?

Yes. I think the ultimate goal is the re-settlement of Israeli settlers—a return after the 2005 withdrawal ordered by then-Prime Minister Sharon. The far-right members of Netanyahu's coalition make no secret of this, starting with Finance Minister Smotrich. This is obviously a project that would be implemented in stages. Through the continued presence of military personnel within Gaza’s perimeter and so-called "security zones," small settlements would initially appear, justified as a need for military control, then grow into larger communities like those in the West Bank. However, I don't think such a re-settlement could work south of the Netzarim corridor, because two million Palestinians, crowded into that open-air ghetto, have nowhere else to go. Over time, they will inevitably become a ticking time bomb of poverty, disease, and dangerous, rising extremism.