Key aspects of the “Gideon’s Chariots” plan include:

• Military Strategy and Occupation The plan involves seizing and holding Gaza indefinitely. Unlike past offensives, Israeli forces will not withdraw but will remain in captured areas, transforming swathes of Gaza into an expanded “sanitized” security belt or buffer zone. Netanyahu emphasized this shift from raid-based operations to occupation and sustaining it. While some officials used the term “holding of territories, not occupation,” they did not clarify if this would be permanent. However, hardline ministers like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have explicitly stated the occupation would be permanent and that Israel will “occupy Gaza to stay,” calling it a “war for victory” and urging Israelis to embrace the word “occupation”. The plan requires mobilizing tens of thousands of reservists. It aims to flatten any buildings left standing and destroy tunnel networks.
• Displacement of the Population A central pillar of the plan is the forced displacement of Palestinians. The plan calls for displacing virtually the entire population of 2 million people to a single “humanitarian area” in the south, possibly near Rafah. Israeli officials frame this as “voluntary relocation” or moving people south “for its own defense”. However, critics and aid agencies view this as ethnic cleansing and a violation of international law. An alternative scenario mentioned is for Palestinians to leave the enclave “voluntarily” for other countries, aligned with “President Trump’s vision for Gaza,” although such departures would not be voluntary and no country has agreed to accept displaced Palestinians.
• Humanitarian Aid Distribution Plan The plan also includes a controversial strategy to control and severely restrict the distribution of humanitarian aid inside Gaza. Aid delivery would be conditioned on Hamas not accessing the supplies. Aid would be distributed via designated “hubs”, which are planned to be managed by a new international foundation and private U.S. companies or security contractors. These contractors would provide security around the hubs, while humanitarian workers would handle direct distribution to vetted families. Israel proposes allowing only about 60 trucks of aid daily, a tenth of the volume during the previous ceasefire, which aid organizations say is far less than needed. National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir opposed the aid plan, stating Israel did not need to provide aid as there was “enough food” in Gaza.

The name “Gideon’s Chariots” (Merkavot Gideon) carries heavy biblical and militaristic symbolism. It evokes the biblical warrior Gideon who, according to Hebrew tradition, annihilated the Midianites. Critics note it blends divine vengeance with state-sanctioned ethnic violence and references Israel’s Merkava tanks.

The stated objectives of the plan are to completely defeat Hamas and secure the release of remaining hostages. However, critics argue that the plan’s scope suggests a broader agenda including collective punishment and permanent occupation. Netanyahu has indicated that victory over Hamas is the “supreme goal,” while freeing hostages is an “important goal”. This prioritization is a point of contention, with many Israelis, particularly hostage families, seeing saving the hostages as the most important goal. The plan’s implementation is reportedly tied to a deadline: the end of President Trump’s visit to the Middle East next week, around May 16, 2025, with the massive ground operation expected to commence if a hostage and ceasefire deal is not reached by then.

“Gideon’s Chariots” has sparked widespread international outrage and condemnation. Global leaders, humanitarian organizations, and regional powers have criticized it as a blueprint for permanent occupation, mass displacement, and intensified violence. Concerns raised include the potential for an impending humanitarian catastrophe, regional destabilization, and violations of international law.

Aid agencies and the UN have firmly rejected the proposed aid distribution plan, calling it a violation of humanitarian principles, logistically unworkable, potentially dangerous for civilians and aid workers, and designed to reinforce control over life-sustaining items as a pressure tactic within a military strategy. Some legal scholars suggest that the plan’s intent for permanent occupation and forced displacement could constitute “crimes of aggression” or “war crimes”.