While there is no talk on forcible transfer and no official plan has been discussed, there appear to be two camps over how Israel should address this question.

When the ceasefire was in effect, the War Cabinet ministers made it clear time and again that this was just a temporary pause. In fact, all the government ministers said that. They made it clear not only to the citizens of Israel but also to world leaders, chiefly among them President Joe Biden.

October 7 was a seminal moment when an entire nation was humiliated and was dealt a painful blow. Even as Cabinet ministers instructed the IDF to cease fire, it was important for them to convey a united front and stress that the fire would resume after the pause. This was maintained even in closed-door security consultations in the larger and smaller versions of the Diplomatic-Security Cabinet.

Nevertheless, despite the united front and consistent message, it is still possible to pick up nuances among the leaders of the war. Inevitably, the delicate cracks in the first act will eventually become a political clash in the final act of the play. There are already differing opinions on how to manage the war, but there are major divisions among the main protagonists over what the "day after" should look like.

The issue of the post-war reality is one of the most sensitive topics today, and discussions about it have not been taking place in any official forum; only in internal consultations. If there is a significant point of contention with the Biden administration regarding Gaza, it revolves around this question. Israel can accommodate the administration on various matters – such as providing humanitarian aid at the request of the American president and even the supply of fuel. It can also say that it is "doing its best" to heed the request not to harm the displaced population in the southern Gaza Strip when the IDF operates there.

However, to hand over the area to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is an entirely different ballgame. Ministers Benny Gantz and Gadi Eizenkot would gladly do this, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant are less enthusiastic.

They have all conveyed the message that Israel has no intention of governing the area's civilian affairs after the war. Gallant means it seriously. Netanyahu doesn't project the same certainty. He has made it clear in his statements that an authority supporting terrorism, paying salaries to terrorists, and inciting its children against Jews will not rule Gaza. This suggests that he will not allow the Abbas' Ramallah henchmen into Gaza. There is no clear alternative. Hence, the IDF will continue to control the area, both security-wise and the civilian life, at least in the foreseeable future.

But another plan has been thrown into the mix. Most cabinet ministers are unaware of it, including the War Cabinet ministers. It is not discussed in these forums due to its combustible nature: It envisions the thinning of the population to the lowest possible level. Biden opposes it vehemently, as does the entire international community. Gallant, the IDF chief of staff, and the top brass of the IDF claim that is unfeasible. But Netanyahu sees it as a strategic goal.

This plan is designed to overcome American resistance without clashing with the administration, while addressing Egypt's vehement opposition without starting a refugee crisis or having Egyptians fire on Gazans crossing into Sinai. It also aims to defuse the global outcry that will emerge once Gazans begin to move voluntarily to other places.

Having refugees in war zones is a given. Millions of refugees have left conflict zones around the world in the past decade, from Syria to Ukraine. They have found refuge in countries that agreed to accept them as a humanitarian gesture. So, why should Gaza be any different?

This is not about a forcible transfer but rather the release of the stranglehold at the Gaza border. Although the crossings into Israel would remain closed, there are other possibilities. Rafah is one of them, despite Egypt being very much against it. There have been periods in which this crossing was essentially open to all, with underground passages resembling an underground freeway. The sea is open to the Gazans as well. Israel has control over the maritime route and it can let that route become accessible should Gazans decide to flee to European and African countries.

But there are major gaps between the government ministers as to whether Israel should be actively encouraging Gazans to leave. For Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, as well as quite a few Likud ministers, such a policy is a necessity. Others, like Gantz, Gallant, and Eizenkot view things as nothing more than a fantasy or even a despicable and immoral plan.

***