A leading Israeli research institute has outlined three possible approaches for Israel’s handling of the devastated Gaza Strip following its ongoing war of destruction, despite the ceasefire agreement that Israeli forces have repeatedly violated. The report comes amid growing speculation that an agreement to end the Israeli American war against Iran may soon be reached.
In an extensive report, Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), authored by Ofer Guterman and Udi Dekel, argued that “as the war against Iran nears its end, attention is expected to shift back to the Gaza Strip”. The report claimed that Hamas is exploiting what it described as a strategic vacuum to rebuild its governing structures and military capabilities.
The Risk of “Imaginary Disarmament”
At the same time, US President Donald Trump’s proposed framework for Gaza remains stalled.
According to the report, the so called “Peace Council” for Gaza, whose executive committee is chaired by Nikolay Mladenov, faces operational and professional challenges, funding shortages, and delays in establishing both an International Stabilisation Force and a Palestinian police apparatus capable of enforcing public order.
The report added that one of the main obstacles remains the issue of disarmament. Israel demands the immediate and complete disarmament of Hamas, while the movement, according to the report, continues to delay and resist such demands.
The institute argued that Israel currently faces three primary alternatives in Gaza.
The first is to renew efforts to fully implement Trump’s framework across the entire territory. However, the report warned that this option carries the risk of what it called “imaginary disarmament” and would ultimately depend on Hamas agreeing to the arrangement.
The second option is a model of gradual stabilisation and reconstruction in areas currently controlled by the Israeli military. These areas, referred to in the report as being within the “yellow zone”, are locations where armed groups cooperating with Israel are active.
Under this scenario, Hamas would gradually lose influence in areas that remain under its control. However, the report warned that such an approach could trigger violent unrest and deepen divisions within Gaza.
The third option is a return to war and the reoccupation of the Gaza Strip, a scenario the institute described as carrying enormous military, economic, and diplomatic costs for Israel.
Calls for a Radical Shift in Policy
The report argued that avoiding the current stalemate and preventing Hamas from regaining strength would require a fundamental shift in Israeli policy.
Among its recommendations was a renewed commitment to Trump’s framework and allowing Nikolay Mladenov to advance his plan for gradual disarmament.
According to the report, Hamas would be encouraged to accept the entry of an international military contingent and agree to dismantle heavy weapons during the initial phase of the process.
The institute also called for coordination with the Trump administration regarding scenarios that could justify the use of force if necessary.
Three Conditions for Implementation
The report stated that this strategy would require three key conditions.
First, Israeli military strikes should be reduced and carried out only when necessary to prevent concrete threats.
Second, the disarmament process should begin with heavy weaponry rather than small arms.
Third, the proposed National Council for Public Care should not be presented as a mechanism to replace Hamas, but rather as a Palestinian technocratic body responsible for reconstruction.
At the same time, the report argued that pathways should be established to integrate some civilian Hamas members into the new framework.
The institute warned that insisting on complete disarmament before withdrawal, reconstruction, and guarantees from Hamas would likely be viewed as a trap.
Such an approach, it argued, could encourage further delays and allow Hamas to infiltrate emerging institutions without relinquishing its actual authority.
Financial Pressure and Dividing Gaza Into Zones
The report stated that if Hamas obstructs the disarmament process, Israel should adopt a different approach.
Under this alternative, a civilian committee and Palestinian police force would enter what the report calls the “green zones”, areas such as Rafah that have been almost entirely destroyed and are currently under Israeli military control and outside Hamas’ influence.
At the same time, Israel would increase its security responsibilities in these areas in a model similar to the occupied West Bank.
Meanwhile, the report proposed systematically dismantling Hamas’ military and governing capabilities in the “red zones”, including the gradual erosion of its territorial control.
The institute also emphasised the importance of pursuing a policy of “financial strangulation” against Hamas.
It argued that Israel and the international community should establish strict funding mechanisms for projects linked to Trump’s framework and the National Funding Initiative, while cutting off Hamas’ financial channels, particularly its ability to distribute humanitarian aid.
The Role of Arab States
The report stressed that the success of reconstruction, from Israel’s perspective, requires a political horizon that can secure regional support.
It argued that Israel should formally commit to a political process and abandon its rejection of the Palestinian Authority as a partner in governing Gaza after Hamas.
According to the report, there is no better alternative.
Without such a political horizon, Israel would be left carrying the burden of administering Gaza alone.
The institute also emphasised what it described as the importance of “moderate Arab states”, particularly the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, taking on a larger role in Gaza instead of Qatar and Turkey.
Military Occupation as a Last Resort
Despite discussing military options throughout the report, the institute concluded that a return to full scale war and military occupation should remain a last resort.
It stressed that any such scenario would require a clear exit strategy and a practical, effective plan for transferring civilian responsibilities to a designated authority capable of managing the population after military operations end.
