The U.S. Congress is Divided Over Israel's Plan for Gaza: A Humanitarian Nightmare or a Security Necessity?

Washington is witnessing an escalating debate and sharp division within the U.S. Congress regarding Israel's plan to occupy the city of Gaza, at a time when the humanitarian crisis in the sector is worsening and levels of American public support for Israel are declining.

While several Republican lawmakers have raised questions and criticisms about the feasibility of the plan, well-known Democrats who traditionally support Israel have taken unprecedented opposing stances, amid warnings that implementing this plan could lead to catastrophic consequences, the most notable of which is turning Gaza into a "logistical nightmare" that deepens Israel's isolation on the international stage, according to a report published by Axios.

Republican Congressman Tim Burchett, a member of the subcommittee on foreign affairs specializing in the Middle East, questioned in a statement to Axios, "Who will actually manage Gaza after the occupation?" Meanwhile, his Republican colleague Ryan Zinke emphasized that "security control does not only mean defeating Hamas, but also taking responsibility for providing humanitarian aid and building an economic future for the residents of the sector."

The controversial Israeli plan came after the Israeli security cabinet approved Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's proposal to grant the Israeli army full control over the city of Gaza with the aim of "defeating Hamas."

Estimates indicate that the implementation of the operation could extend for several months, causing the displacement of nearly one million Palestinians, while the army has also been tasked with distributing humanitarian aid in the areas it controls.

However, the Chief of Staff of the Israeli army warned during the ministerial meeting that this plan could endanger the lives of Israeli captives and herald a "long-term military rule" in Gaza, complicating the field and political situation further.

The strongest rejection came from within the Democratic Party, where Congressman Brad Schneider, the head of the "New Democratic Coalition" which includes about 100 members, described the plan as "tactically questionable and strategically frustrating," warning that it "could serve Hamas's goals and unite the world against Israel."

For his part, Democratic Congressman Ritchie Torres likened the Israeli plan to the long American attempts at control in Iraq and Afghanistan, warning that the war could turn into a "quagmire," while simultaneously calling for efforts to focus on freeing the captives instead of occupying Gaza.

Despite the rising criticisms, Israel still enjoys significant support from the majority of Republican lawmakers.

Congressman Mike Lawler, the head of the subcommittee on foreign affairs for the Middle East, confirmed that "in the absence of a ceasefire that Hamas rejects, Israel has no other option but to move forward."

As for Congressman Don Bacon, he went so far as to say that "peace with Hamas is impossible, and if the movement is not uprooted and the captives are not released, then occupying Gaza may be necessary."

In this context, regional countries like Egypt have warned that implementing Israel's threat to occupy Gaza could be met with military responses and potential international sanctions, which could increase Tel Aviv's isolation and undermine de-escalation efforts.

The deep divisions within Congress reflect a noticeable shift in American political sentiment towards Israel, especially in light of the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza and increasing international pressure for a ceasefire.

With unconditional support from some Republicans and realistic warnings from prominent Democrats, the plan to occupy Gaza appears to be a choice fraught with political, humanitarian, and military risks, casting increasing doubt on its ultimate fate.