Global newspapers: The occupation of Gaza is still far off, and handing it over to Arab forces exists only in Netanyahu's imagination.

Global newspapers and websites have highlighted the suffering of Gazans at aid distribution sites, where residents are facing a severe shortage of food and basic necessities. Reports indicate that Israeli occupation forces deliberately open fire on the displaced, exacerbating their suffering.

The British newspaper The Guardian conducted an investigative report revealing a continuous pattern of shooting at Palestinians seeking food. Visual evidence, bullet casings, and medical data have shown reckless and irresponsible behavior by the occupation forces, raising concerns about the use of weapons in these circumstances.

In a related context, military analyst Amos Harel in Haaretz confirmed that the occupation of Gaza is still far off, pointing to American demands regarding humanitarian needs and the Israeli army's requirement for a large mobilization of reserve forces. He also noted a decline in soldiers' responsiveness to calls.

Harel indicated that soldiers who will carry out orders to occupy the city of Gaza may face legal accountability for committing crimes against humanity, complicating the military and political situation further.

On another note, the Financial Times reported from an Israeli source that the media promotion surrounding a military operation indicates the presence of other political considerations. It confirmed that there is enough time for the army and the international community to influence the outlines of the operation.

The editorial of Le Monde considered Netanyahu's disregard for the military establishment's opinion on the occupation of Gaza to be a serious rupture, noting that the idea of handing Gaza over to Arab forces is nothing more than a fantasy, as no Arab state is willing to act as an agent for the occupation.

An analysis in The New York Times pointed out that the idea of handing over control to Arab forces crosses a red line set by Netanyahu, as agreeing to that would mean the end of the war and a withdrawal from the sector, which could lead to the collapse of his government coalition.