In recent days, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered the Israeli army to seize 70% of Gaza – a sizeable increase from the 60% it currently controls.

This follows an updated map sent to aid agencies in Gaza in late March featuring a new “orange line” demarcating the restricted area under military control – about 11% larger than the area agreed to with the “yellow line” in the October ceasefire with Hamas.

Israel’s defence minister has also confirmed in recent days the government’s intention to move large numbers of Palestinians out of Gaza “at the right time and in the right manner”.

All of this is happening in a charged political environment in Israel: the Knesset dissolved itself on May 20, creating the possibility of an early election in September.

Israel’s actions are in clear violation of the 20-point Gaza peace plan, which called for a staged withdrawal of Israeli troops and actively “encouraged” residents to stay. It reads:

No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has acknowledged as much, telling a congressional hearing this week that the peace plan “doesn’t call for” expanded military control of the strip.

The 2.1 million Palestinians in Gaza are being squeezed into an ever-smaller pocket of the decimated, overcrowded territory. And it appears the international community is doing little to stop it.

Laws against conquering territory

International law permits militaries to occupy foreign territory in pursuit of war aims, but there are two key limitations here.

First, an occupying force cannot pursue a legal claim to the territory it holds. The UN Charter has clearly outlawed the right to conquest under Article 2(4). Breaches of this article are treated very seriously, as the world’s reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shown. This can be considered a war crime – the crime of aggression.

For Israel, this means its control of Gaza cannot result in a claim to sovereignty over any part of the strip. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) underscored this in its 2024 advisory opinion on Israel’s actions in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Second, any occupying military power must comply with international humanitarian law and international human rights law in a conflict. This means ensuring the welfare of the population under its control.

This has been the case in Gaza since Israel captured it from Egypt in the Six-Day War in 1967, beginning a decades-long occupation of the strip.

In fact, Israel’s obligations as an occupying power continued even after it pulled out its troops and dismantled its settlements in 2005.

As part of these obligations, an occupying power must preserve the demographic composition of the territory it controls. In this specific case, international law prohibits the removal of a population (the Palestinians) and the transfer of another population (Israeli settlers) onto occupied land.

A flawed peace plan

Despite these clear legal principles, enforcement of Israel’s obligations will be at best difficult, slow and piecemeal.

In its 2024 advisory opinion, for instance, the ICJ ordered Israel to withdraw fully from the occupied Palestinian territories, saying its presence is in breach of two key legal principles – self-determination and the prohibition against conquest. The UN General Assembly endorsed the findings and set a deadline of September 14 2025 for the withdrawal. Israel ignored the deadline.

The general assembly can’t enforce an ICJ ruling, only the security council can. And this avenue is blocked due to the US veto power.

More worrying is that the clarity provided by international law – prohibiting conquest, genocide, settlements and forced displacement – is being blurred by the 20-point peace plan mediated by US President Donald Trump and the so-called Board of Peace overseeing the process.

Last November, the UN Security Council endorsed Trump’s plan to end the conflict, disarm Hamas and establish a new transitional government system under the auspices of the Board of Peace and an International Stabilisation Force to keep the peace.

But the ceasefire agreement was flawed from the start. The text, for instance, did not include any specifications about Israel’s presence in the strip, accountability for alleged crimes or demilitarisation of Palestinian groups.

Since the ceasefire, the entire process has predictably stalled. Israeli strikes have continued, killing more than 900 Palestinians. Aid delivery is far below the needs of a desperate population. And Hamas refuses to disarm without firm guarantees on future Palestinian self-determination.

Behind the ‘yellow line’

This stalemate suits Israel perfectly. Under the map of the ceasefire agreement, Israel was permitted to keep its troops in areas behind a “yellow line” encircling the majority of the population along the coast. This gave Israel military control of just over half of Gaza.

Then, in the area under its control, Israel began two activities that speak to its longer-term political aspirations.

First, it levelled entire neighbourhoods and hundreds of buildings, turning this part of Gaza into a wasteland devoid of inhabitants and any recognisable landmarks.

Second, on this blank canvas, it constructed an impressive array of military roads, outposts and barriers, including permanent earthen berms (walls).

This gives Israel the possibility of perpetual control of a territory devoid of Palestinians. If this status quo continues, it would amount to forced displacement and conquest.

Day by day, Palestinian Gaza is shrinking and a new Gaza is being forged through bulldozers and barriers. Netanyahu has indicated Israel may not stop at 70% depopulation and control. It may seek to preserve a large “buffer” zone in Gaza – as it is doing in Lebanon and Syria – or perhaps revive the project of Israeli settlement of the strip, which is in full swing across the West Bank.

All of this is happening in violation of international law and a “peace” plan that has no clear vision for a long-term solution for the Palestinian people.

Michelle Burgis-Kasthala does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

In recent days, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has ordered the Israeli army to seize 70% of Gaza – a sizeable increase from the 60% it currently controls.

This follows an updated map sent to aid agencies in Gaza in late March featuring a new “orange line” demarcating the restricted area under military control – about 11% larger than the area agreed to with the “yellow line” in the October ceasefire with Hamas.

Israel’s defence minister has also confirmed in recent days the government’s intention to move large numbers of Palestinians out of Gaza “at the right time and in the right manner”.

All of this is happening in a charged political environment in Israel: the Knesset dissolved itself on May 20, creating the possibility of an early election in September.

Israel’s actions are in clear violation of the 20-point Gaza peace plan, which called for a staged withdrawal of Israeli troops and actively “encouraged” residents to stay. It reads:

No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has acknowledged as much, telling a congressional hearing this week that the peace plan “doesn’t call for” expanded military control of the strip.

The 2.1 million Palestinians in Gaza are being squeezed into an ever-smaller pocket of the decimated, overcrowded territory. And it appears the international community is doing little to stop it.

Laws against conquering territory

International law permits militaries to occupy foreign territory in pursuit of war aims, but there are two key limitations here.

First, an occupying force cannot pursue a legal claim to the territory it holds. The UN Charter has clearly outlawed the right to conquest under Article 2(4). Breaches of this article are treated very seriously, as the world’s reaction to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has shown. This can be considered a war crime – the crime of aggression.

For Israel, this means its control of Gaza cannot result in a claim to sovereignty over any part of the strip. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) underscored this in its 2024 advisory opinion on Israel’s actions in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Second, any occupying military power must comply with international humanitarian law and international human rights law in a conflict. This means ensuring the welfare of the population under its control.

This has been the case in Gaza since Israel captured it from Egypt in the Six-Day War in 1967, beginning a decades-long occupation of the strip.

In fact, Israel’s obligations as an occupying power continued even after it pulled out its troops and dismantled its settlements in 2005.

As part of these obligations, an occupying power must preserve the demographic composition of the territory it controls. In this specific case, international law prohibits the removal of a population (the Palestinians) and the transfer of another population (Israeli settlers) onto occupied land.

A flawed peace plan

Despite these clear legal principles, enforcement of Israel’s obligations will be at best difficult, slow and piecemeal.

In its 2024 advisory opinion, for instance, the ICJ ordered Israel to withdraw fully from the occupied Palestinian territories, saying its presence is in breach of two key legal principles – self-determination and the prohibition against conquest. The UN General Assembly endorsed the findings and set a deadline of September 14 2025 for the withdrawal. Israel ignored the deadline.

The general assembly can’t enforce an ICJ ruling, only the security council can. And this avenue is blocked due to the US veto power.

More worrying is that the clarity provided by international law – prohibiting conquest, genocide, settlements and forced displacement – is being blurred by the 20-point peace plan mediated by US President Donald Trump and the so-called Board of Peace overseeing the process.

Last November, the UN Security Council endorsed Trump’s plan to end the conflict, disarm Hamas and establish a new transitional government system under the auspices of the Board of Peace and an International Stabilisation Force to keep the peace.

But the ceasefire agreement was flawed from the start. The text, for instance, did not include any specifications about Israel’s presence in the strip, accountability for alleged crimes or demilitarisation of Palestinian groups.

Since the ceasefire, the entire process has predictably stalled. Israeli strikes have continued, killing more than 900 Palestinians. Aid delivery is far below the needs of a desperate population. And Hamas refuses to disarm without firm guarantees on future Palestinian self-determination.

Behind the ‘yellow line’

This stalemate suits Israel perfectly. Under the map of the ceasefire agreement, Israel was permitted to keep its troops in areas behind a “yellow line” encircling the majority of the population along the coast. This gave Israel military control of just over half of Gaza.

Then, in the area under its control, Israel began two activities that speak to its longer-term political aspirations.

First, it levelled entire neighbourhoods and hundreds of buildings, turning this part of Gaza into a wasteland devoid of inhabitants and any recognisable landmarks.

Second, on this blank canvas, it constructed an impressive array of military roads, outposts and barriers, including permanent earthen berms (walls).

This gives Israel the possibility of perpetual control of a territory devoid of Palestinians. If this status quo continues, it would amount to forced displacement and conquest.

Day by day, Palestinian Gaza is shrinking and a new Gaza is being forged through bulldozers and barriers. Netanyahu has indicated Israel may not stop at 70% depopulation and control. It may seek to preserve a large “buffer” zone in Gaza – as it is doing in Lebanon and Syria – or perhaps revive the project of Israeli settlement of the strip, which is in full swing across the West Bank.

All of this is happening in violation of international law and a “peace” plan that has no clear vision for a long-term solution for the Palestinian people.

Michelle Burgis-Kasthala does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

As the US and Iran try to come to terms on a peace deal to end their months-long war, US President Donald Trump this week has introduced a new demand – that other countries in the Middle East sign on to his Abraham Accords, normalising relations with Israel.

There are reasons for this. The US and Israel are militarily, strategically and economically weaker than they were on the eve of launching “Operation Epic Fury”, their joint military operation against Iran, in late February.

Their carefully built-up alliances with Persian Gulf countries are now being reevaluated, given these ties didn’t prevent Gulf states from being attacked by Iran. And Iran – despite losing many political and military leaders in months of devastating strikes – seems more powerful than ever.

In this context, both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu desperately need a symbolic victory they can sell to their respective electorates before the US midterm elections and Knesset elections later this year.

This partially explains why Trump is trying to re-invigorate the Abraham Accords, which he has long touted as one of the biggest foreign policy successes of his first term in office.

In a phone call over the weekend with regional partners, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, he insisted their inclusion in any Iran deal depended on all joining the accords. This means establishing diplomatic ties with Israel.

---

Read more: After the Iran war, Persian Gulf nations face tough decisions on the US – a former diplomat explains

---

What are the Abraham Accords?

The Abraham Accords were part of a package of diplomatic initiatives overseen by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, during Trump’s first term. The accords were an attempt to “solve” the long-running Palestinian-Israeli and broader Arab-Israeli conflicts.

Since the first Arab-Israeli War and Israel’s creation in the 1940s, the question of Palestine has plagued the Arab world. It remains the most important political concern of the public in Arab countries today, despite growing disinterest from many Arab leaders.

With the assistance of the US, Israel has, over the decades, slowly chipped away at the collective Arab opposition to its illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territories. This started with its peace agreements with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994 and continued with the Abraham Accords.

Before the accords were signed in 2020, the Trump administration moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, closed the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s Washington office and declared that the US no longer viewed Israeli West Bank settlements as illegal.

Then, in 2020, Trump and Netanyahu launched the Peace to Prosperity Plan. While past peace efforts had at least gestured towards Palestinian participation, this one promised economic development at the expense of Palestinian statehood.

The UAE and Bahrain then signed onto the Abraham Accords in September 2020, followed by Morocco in December 2020, Sudan in January 2021 and then Kazakhstan in November 2025.

There were many carrots offered to these countries in exchange for recognising Israel, largely economic, military and diplomatic agreements. For example, the UAE secured advanced weapons and military technology from the US. And Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara was recognised by the US and Israel.

Would any countries join now?

The jewel in the crown, however, has always been Saudi Arabia. This was purportedly a key driver behind the timing of Hamas’ attacks on Israel in October 2023. The group was desperate to derail normalisation talks between the two.

Since Israel’s devastating retaliatory war on Gaza began, Saudi Arabia has been a prominent advocate of Palestinian statehood. It has publicly refused to sign the accords without firm guarantees of Palestinian self-determination.

The remaining regional powers, such as Pakistan, Qatar and Turkey, must take account of their restive populations, who are overwhelmingly supportive of Palestinian self-determination. The US would have to apply significant pressure and offer large carrots for any of them to be persuaded to change course.

Pakistan, in fact, has already rejected Trump’s demands and Saudi Arabia is likely to follow.

So, while it might make sense to link Iran and Palestine together through a regional peace agreement, the Abraham Accords are simply too toxic in their current form for most countries to entertain.

The region is looking for its own solutions

But this won’t stop Trump and Netanyahu from trying to press their case.

If Israel can get other nations on board, Netanyahu can craft a narrative around closer regional ties as he continues Israel’s destruction and occupation of southern Lebanon in its fight against Hezbollah.

This would still be a paltry prize compared to its long-desired aim of removing the Iranian threat altogether. And it may not alleviate the growing pushback he is facing from an increasingly overstretched army.

Closer ties with Arab countries would also not offset the rapid erosion of regional public opinion against Israel. Such negative views are now widely entertained even among Trump’s MAGA base.

The Trump Administration also needs a win. It is reeling from its latest Middle East misadventure:

• its weapons stocks are massively depleted
• the global energy shock is fuelling domestic discontent
• its Gulf allies are questioning the US security umbrella
• and it faces Israeli reluctance to any Iran peace deal.

But in a region undergoing a dramatic strategic reconfiguration, the Abraham Accords are increasingly seen as a US-imposed framework. Some countries are trying to reshape the region in ways that would benefit them instead.

Most notably, Saudi Arabia has reportedly floated a regional non-aggression pact (including Iran) along the lines of Europe’s Helsinki Accords that aimed to ease Cold War tensions in Europe.

Perhaps Trump is trying to re-invigorate the Abraham Accords as a way to counter the Saudi move. Undoubtedly, he is also trying to appease Netanyahu. The silence his demand has received, however, may indicate the region is no longer amenable to US persuasion, no matter how big the carrots are.

Michelle Burgis-Kasthala does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

As the US and Iran try to come to terms on a peace deal to end their months-long war, US President Donald Trump this week has introduced a new demand – that other countries in the Middle East sign on to his Abraham Accords, normalising relations with Israel.

There are reasons for this. The US and Israel are militarily, strategically and economically weaker than they were on the eve of launching “Operation Epic Fury”, their joint military operation against Iran, in late February.

Their carefully built-up alliances with Persian Gulf countries are now being reevaluated, given these ties didn’t prevent Gulf states from being attacked by Iran. And Iran – despite losing many political and military leaders in months of devastating strikes – seems more powerful than ever.

In this context, both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu desperately need a symbolic victory they can sell to their respective electorates before the US midterm elections and Knesset elections later this year.

This partially explains why Trump is trying to re-invigorate the Abraham Accords, which he has long touted as one of the biggest foreign policy successes of his first term in office.

In a phone call over the weekend with regional partners, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan, he insisted their inclusion in any Iran deal depended on all joining the accords. This means establishing diplomatic ties with Israel.

---

Read more: After the Iran war, Persian Gulf nations face tough decisions on the US – a former diplomat explains

---

What are the Abraham Accords?

The Abraham Accords were part of a package of diplomatic initiatives overseen by Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, during Trump’s first term. The accords were an attempt to “solve” the long-running Palestinian-Israeli and broader Arab-Israeli conflicts.

Since the first Arab-Israeli War and Israel’s creation in the 1940s, the question of Palestine has plagued the Arab world. It remains the most important political concern of the public in Arab countries today, despite growing disinterest from many Arab leaders.

With the assistance of the US, Israel has, over the decades, slowly chipped away at the collective Arab opposition to its illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territories. This started with its peace agreements with Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994 and continued with the Abraham Accords.

Before the accords were signed in 2020, the Trump administration moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, closed the Palestine Liberation Organisation’s Washington office and declared that the US no longer viewed Israeli West Bank settlements as illegal.

Then, in 2020, Trump and Netanyahu launched the Peace to Prosperity Plan. While past peace efforts had at least gestured towards Palestinian participation, this one promised economic development at the expense of Palestinian statehood.

The UAE and Bahrain then signed onto the Abraham Accords in September 2020, followed by Morocco in December 2020, Sudan in January 2021 and then Kazakhstan in November 2025.

There were many carrots offered to these countries in exchange for recognising Israel, largely economic, military and diplomatic agreements. For example, the UAE secured advanced weapons and military technology from the US. And Morocco’s sovereignty over Western Sahara was recognised by the US and Israel.

Would any countries join now?

The jewel in the crown, however, has always been Saudi Arabia. This was purportedly a key driver behind the timing of Hamas’ attacks on Israel in October 2023. The group was desperate to derail normalisation talks between the two.

Since Israel’s devastating retaliatory war on Gaza began, Saudi Arabia has been a prominent advocate of Palestinian statehood. It has publicly refused to sign the accords without firm guarantees of Palestinian self-determination.

The remaining regional powers, such as Pakistan, Qatar and Turkey, must take account of their restive populations, who are overwhelmingly supportive of Palestinian self-determination. The US would have to apply significant pressure and offer large carrots for any of them to be persuaded to change course.

Pakistan, in fact, has already rejected Trump’s demands and Saudi Arabia is likely to follow.

So, while it might make sense to link Iran and Palestine together through a regional peace agreement, the Abraham Accords are simply too toxic in their current form for most countries to entertain.

The region is looking for its own solutions

But this won’t stop Trump and Netanyahu from trying to press their case.

If Israel can get other nations on board, Netanyahu can craft a narrative around closer regional ties as he continues Israel’s destruction and occupation of southern Lebanon in its fight against Hezbollah.

This would still be a paltry prize compared to its long-desired aim of removing the Iranian threat altogether. And it may not alleviate the growing pushback he is facing from an increasingly overstretched army.

Closer ties with Arab countries would also not offset the rapid erosion of regional public opinion against Israel. Such negative views are now widely entertained even among Trump’s MAGA base.

The Trump Administration also needs a win. It is reeling from its latest Middle East misadventure:

• its weapons stocks are massively depleted
• the global energy shock is fuelling domestic discontent
• its Gulf allies are questioning the US security umbrella
• and it faces Israeli reluctance to any Iran peace deal.

But in a region undergoing a dramatic strategic reconfiguration, the Abraham Accords are increasingly seen as a US-imposed framework. Some countries are trying to reshape the region in ways that would benefit them instead.

Most notably, Saudi Arabia has reportedly floated a regional non-aggression pact (including Iran) along the lines of Europe’s Helsinki Accords that aimed to ease Cold War tensions in Europe.

Perhaps Trump is trying to re-invigorate the Abraham Accords as a way to counter the Saudi move. Undoubtedly, he is also trying to appease Netanyahu. The silence his demand has received, however, may indicate the region is no longer amenable to US persuasion, no matter how big the carrots are.

Michelle Burgis-Kasthala does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.