In a move that has sent shockwaves through the corridors of power in London and beyond, Benjamin Netanyahu has instructed the Israeli Defence Forces to seize control of 70% of the Gaza Strip. The Prime Minister’s office framed the order as a necessary step to ensure long-term security, but on the ground, it looks very much like a land grab. The UK, ever the voice of cautious diplomacy, has urged restraint, but the question remains: what does this mean for the people living in the dust and rubble of Gaza?
For the average Gazan, this is not a geopolitical chess move. It is the end of a semblance of normal life. The areas targeted for seizure include agricultural land, coastal access, and the last remaining pockets of infrastructure that had not been destroyed. I spoke with a father of four in Khan Younis, who told me, ‘We have lost everything. Now they are taking the ground under our feet.’ His words echo a sentiment that is spreading like wildfire across social media and humanitarian reports.
The cultural shift here is profound. Gaza, already one of the most densely populated places on earth, is being reduced to a series of isolated enclaves. The human cost is not just in the immediate displacement of thousands, but in the long-term erosion of community and identity. The land is not just territory; it is memory, livelihood, and the possibility of a future. When 70% of that is taken, what remains is a cage.
Netanyahu’s justification rests on the premise of rooting out Hamas militants, but the broad sweep of the operation suggests a different logic. This is about creating facts on the ground: buffer zones, settlement expansions, and a permanent reshaping of borders. The UK foreign office has called for an immediate ceasefire and a return to negotiations, but their words carry little weight when the bulldozers are already rolling.
From a social psychology perspective, this is a classic case of group threat perception. When a nation feels besieged, it often lashes out disproportionately. But the irony is that such actions tend to breed more extremism, not less. The children growing up in the rubble of this operation will not remember Netanyahu’s security briefings. They will remember the day their home was taken.
This is not about right or left, but about the slow grinding of everyday life under the weight of geopolitics. As the UK urges restraint, one must ask: who is listening? And more importantly, who will rebuild what is being destroyed?
