“Gideon’s Chariots”: Inside Israel’s Most Brutal Plan for Gaza

The Israeli Security Cabinet has officially approved a new escalation plan for Gaza known as “Gideon’s Chariots”—a strategy rooted in systemic starvation, mass killings, and the deliberate blocking of food and medicine. The plan seeks to fragment the Gaza Strip into isolated enclaves, ultimately forcing Palestinians into a designated area dubbed “Mini Gaza” as a prelude to large-scale forced displacement outside the territory.

But what exactly is “Gideon’s Chariots”, and how does Israel plan to implement it amid Gaza’s rapidly worsening humanitarian crisis?

Components and Objectives of the “Gideon’s Chariots” Plan

Approved on May 6, the plan aims to eliminate Hamas and establish a new “security reality” in Gaza, one that secures a permanent Israeli military presence and prioritises what it calls the “return of hostages.”

Described as a multi-pronged strategy, the plan combines military, diplomatic, and psychological warfare to achieve its goals. Despite lacking a coherent post-war vision—largely due to internal Israeli political divisions and misalignment with Washington—the plan asserts that any “day after” scenario must include the complete destruction of both Hamas and Islamic Jihad, as well as permanent military control over Gaza.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reinforced that “victory” requires full reoccupation, disarmament of Gaza, dismantling Hamas’ governance, and the forced relocation of civilians to southern Gaza for aid distribution—while placing the release of hostages at the bottom of the priority list.

The Plan’s Three Phases

The “Gideon’s Chariots” plan unfolds in three main stages:

Phase 1: Logistical and Psychological Preparation

• • Already underway and completed shortly after President Trump’s regional tour.

• • Involves displacing civilians southward, particularly between the Morag and Philadelphi corridors.

• • Establishing “logistical hubs” to distribute food, water, and medicine—managed by a U.S.-based firm.

• • Destroying tunnels connecting Rafah, Khan Yunis, and central Gaza to isolate areas and sever supply lines.

Phase 2: Pre-invasion Bombardment and Forced Displacement

• • Considered the most severe in humanitarian terms.

• • Includes intense aerial and ground bombardment across the Strip.

• • Directing civilians—via threats, flyers, and SMS messages—to relocate to specific areas in Rafah.

• • Establishing “security filtering points” run by the IDF and Shin Bet to screen for resistance fighters.

Phase 3: Invasion and Military Dismantlement

• • Starts once civilians have been evacuated.

• • Gradual ground invasion of cleared northern areas.

• • Full-scale demolition of Hamas’ military infrastructure, including tunnels and command centers.

• • Long-term Israeli military presence to prevent any future rebuilding of resistance capacities.

Tools of Coercion

The plan’s success hinges on five “pressure levers”:

1. 1. Direct occupation and ground control.

1. 1. Separation of civilians from resistance fighters through security checkpoints known as “filters.”

1. 1. Blocking aid from reaching Hamas.

1. 1. Creating a wedge between Hamas and the civilian population.

1. 1. Information warfare, including psychological operations and intelligence to target Palestinian leadership.

Through these tactics, Israel aims to engineer an environment conducive to what it terms “voluntary migration” of Palestinians—either to Sinai or by sea. Media reports suggest ongoing secret talks with foreign nations to absorb Gaza refugees.

Forced Displacement Disguised as Aid

Israeli officials have been forthright about the plan’s objectives. Finance Minister and War Cabinet member Bezalel Smotrich has openly called for reoccupying Gaza for the next 50 years, complete destruction of its infrastructure, and mass displacement of its population.

As reported by Yedioth Ahronoth, Smotrich said: “Victory is achieved when Gaza’s population is pushed south of the Morag corridor and begins to leave the Strip for good.”

He added: “Only then will they understand there is no future for them in Gaza, and they’ll start searching for new lives elsewhere,” affirming Israel’s intent to impose full control over Gaza for decades to come.

It Won’t Work on Hamas

According to Naomi Neumann, former head of research at Israel’s Shin Bet security agency, while the “Gideon’s Chariots” plan enjoys political consensus, it suffers from ambiguity regarding its final outcome. In her analysis published by the Washington Institute, Neumann argues that removing Hamas from Gaza is unlikely to succeed in forcing the group into surrender.

Given Hamas’ ideological and political identity as an Islamic resistance movement, full capitulation is improbable. Rather, continued military occupation—explicit or covert—may actually allow Hamas to regain popularity, especially amid growing public anger in Gaza and the West Bank, compounded by ongoing Israeli violations.

Neumann states that while Hamas may show tactical flexibility under military pressure—offering hostage-related concessions or accepting temporary truces—it is unlikely to agree to any permanent settlement without solid international guarantees. These would have to include a multi-year ceasefire, phased Israeli withdrawal, and the establishment of a Palestinian civil authority with indirect Hamas influence.

In practice, the plan might weaken Hamas’ military strength and dismantle parts of its leadership in the short term—but it won’t erase the movement as an ideological or organisational force. The plan’s marginal focus on hostage recovery also raises questions about the operation’s true objectives and the Israeli government’s commitment to its citizens.

Ultimately, the plan’s fate will depend on various factors—most crucially, U.S. and regional willingness to exert real pressure on both sides. Without such intervention, the plan risks deepening political divisions, fuelling extremism, and triggering a prolonged military occupation met with ongoing resistance. This, in turn, could derail broader U.S. strategies in the region—particularly those President Trump’s latest visit appears aimed at cementing.