Israel has quietly given the green light for infrastructure work to begin in a designated area of southern Gaza, according to Israeli media, as it advances a post-war vision that experts warn is designed to reshape reality on the ground and permanently fragment the enclave.

Dubbed “Green Rafah”, the project backed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Israel Katz is in eastern Rafah near the unilaterally imposed “Yellow Line”, the effective Israeli buffer zone squeezing Palestinians into smaller areas.

Army Radio, which reported the approval on Sunday, said the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office described the initiative as an Emirati-backed pilot project aimed at establishing temporary housing “free” of the influence of the Palestinian group Hamas.

While the Israeli military will reportedly supervise the installation of water, sewage and electrical infrastructure, Palestinian labourers will be subjected to intense security screenings by the Shin Bet intelligence agency.

Furthermore, strict limitations have been imposed on the project, with Israeli authorities reportedly banning the entry of “caravans” or mobile homes into the area until at least November.

Also on Sunday, Netanyahu said he rejects the 15-point plan for Gaza announced last month by the United States-led Board of Peace.

The plan calls for the disarmament of Hamas in stages and the phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Strip, but Netanyahu said an Israeli pull-out won’t happen until Hamas is fully disarmed.

As political negotiations over the future of Gaza stall, Palestinian political researcher Ahmed al-Atawneh warned that projects such as “Green Rafah” are designed to create isolated cantons under total Israeli administrative and security control. With this framework, he argued, Israel leaves Palestinians with only three choices: “Either they fully submit to Israeli policies, face death or imprisonment if they resist, or emigrate.”

Far from providing genuine humanitarian relief, al-Atawneh said Israel’s strategy relies on stripping the Palestinian struggle of its political dimension.

“Treating Palestinians merely as residents rather than citizens with a national cause means, in practice, undermining and liquidating the Palestinian cause,” he said, adding that this approach aligns with the broad consensus in the Israeli parliament rejecting any Palestinian political entity.

Al-Atawneh further criticised Arab involvement in such frameworks outside of a unified Palestinian consensus. “If any country is involved in this project based on the Israeli vision and away from the Palestinians, it raises many questions and essentially serves Israeli policy, rather than genuinely assisting or relieving Palestinians,” he added.

The Israeli ban on mobile homes and delay of meaningful reconstruction of civilian infrastructure carry deep strategic implications, according to experts.

Mohammad Hamed al-Aila, a Palestinian researcher, pointed out that the humanitarian protocol attached to a ceasefire agreement signed last year in Egypt’s Sharm el-Sheikh explicitly mandates the entry of temporary housing (caravans) and repair of civilian infrastructure.

“Israel has not adhered to these obligations, despite 10 months passing since” the signing of a ceasefire deal, said al-Aila, noting that Israel continues to stall while Hamas demands the full implementation of the first phase.

“Preventing the entry of caravans and postponing any serious reconstruction track cannot be separated from the broader Israeli goal of perpetuating the humanitarian catastrophe,” said al-Aila. “Israel views the humanitarian situation in Gaza as a tool of political pressure aimed at gradually pushing the population towards migration.”

Al-Atawneh agreed, suggesting that Netanyahu is using these delays to buy time ahead of Israel’s elections in October in an effort to preserve his far-right-wing coalition, all while pursuing long-term goals of demographic engineering and displacement.

The international force dilemma

In tandem with these administrative zones, preparations are moving forward to deploy a limited International Stabilization Force (ISF). Reports indicate that countries such as Morocco and Uganda may send small contingents of around 200 troops each, falling drastically short of initial plans for a much larger multinational force.

Al-Aila argued that these token numbers reflect Israel’s traditional tactic of superficially accepting US proposals while hollowing out their actual implementation.

The mandate of this force remains a major point of contention. “Palestinians want a protection and separation force that shields them from the occupation and guarantees the implementation of agreements,” al-Aila said. “Conversely, Israel wants to turn this force into a security arm tasked with disarming and pursuing the resistance.”

According to al-Aila, the Palestinian stance on the ISF ultimately will depend entirely on its actual function: If it operates under the Israeli security ceiling to target Palestinians, it will be viewed merely as an “international facade for the continuation of the occupation”, he said.

The experts said the only counter-strategy to what they described as engineered fragmentation is robust Palestinian unity.

Al-Atawneh stressed that facing these policies requires a unified Palestinian administration, a national consensus government, and the rebuilding of political institutions based on true partnership.

However, he expressed deep frustration with the current Palestinian political leadership.

“Unfortunately, there appears to be no decision, will, or capability from the official political leadership – namely the Palestinian Authority and the PLO,” said al-Atawneh, referring to the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

“They continue to turn their backs on all popular and non-popular Palestinian attempts to present visions for unifying the Palestinian front.”