Netanyahu orders IDF to control 70% of Gaza—while offshore gas plans and humanitarian collapse collide

On May 28, 2026, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he ordered the Israel Defense Forces to take control of 70% of the Gaza Strip, a move described by reporting as violating the terms of the October 2025 ceasefire. The declarations came as Gaza remained the scene of daily violence, with Israeli strikes continuing and Israel and Hamas trading accusations of ceasefire violations. In parallel, humanitarian reporting highlighted the near-collapse of specialized health and education services for children with Down syndrome, with families and specialists describing long-term devastation and disruption of care. Other coverage focused on how blockades and destruction have pushed Gaza’s agricultural sector to the brink, leaving only a small fraction of cultivable land available. Strategically, the 70% control order signals a shift from a purely “ceasefire” posture toward a more durable security footprint, raising questions about whether the ceasefire is being used as a cover for territorial consolidation. That matters geopolitically because it changes the bargaining space for ceasefire enforcement, hostage negotiations, and any future reconstruction or governance arrangements. Hamas is positioned as both a political actor and a security challenger, while Israel frames the move as operational control amid ongoing violations. Rights groups and observers also add a second, longer-horizon contest: Israel’s offshore gas exploration plans tied to Gaza are being condemned as an illegal resource grab, potentially hardening international opposition and complicating maritime boundary and investment calculations. Market and economic implications extend beyond humanitarian optics. Offshore natural gas development proposals can influence regional energy expectations, shipping and insurance risk perceptions around the Eastern Mediterranean, and the political risk premium demanded by investors, even before any drilling begins. Gaza’s agricultural collapse implies food supply fragility and higher dependence on imports and aid, which can spill into regional humanitarian procurement markets and logistics. The combined picture—territorial control claims plus contested energy rights—tends to raise risk for maritime routes and for any firms exposed to Eastern Mediterranean energy infrastructure, while also increasing the likelihood of sanctions or legal challenges that can affect financing and project timelines. What to watch next is whether the 70% control order is implemented on the ground and how ceasefire monitors, mediators, and legal bodies respond to the alleged October 2025 violation. A key trigger is escalation in daily strikes or a measurable expansion of IDF presence that would narrow humanitarian access and further degrade health and education capacity for vulnerable groups. On the energy front, monitor statements and filings by rights groups and any moves by governments or international institutions regarding the legality of Gaza-adjacent offshore exploration. Finally, track agricultural indicators—how much land remains usable and whether aid and inputs reach farmers—as a real-time proxy for whether the ceasefire is translating into any stabilization or merely pausing violence.

Geopolitical Implications

• 01

  A 70% control posture could reshape ceasefire bargaining and reduce compliance incentives.

• 02

  Contested offshore gas rights internationalize the dispute and raise legal/investment friction.

• 03

  Humanitarian breakdown for vulnerable groups increases reputational and diplomatic pressure.

• 04

  Eastern Mediterranean maritime and energy risk premiums are likely to rise as security and resource claims converge.

Key Signals

• —On-the-ground evidence of IDF expansion matching the “70%” claim.
• —International responses by monitors/mediators to alleged October 2025 ceasefire violations.
• —Legal or diplomatic moves targeting Gaza-adjacent offshore exploration.
• —Health/education functionality and agricultural input delivery as real-time stabilization proxies.