WhatsappIn a move that could redefine the international footprint in Israel’s security landscape, the United States is pushing forward plans to construct a major military base near the Gaza border, according to multiple Israeli media reports. The facility, estimated to cost around $500 million, would serve as a hub for international forces tasked with maintaining the fragile ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, signaling a pivotal expansion of Washington’s involvement in the post-war stabilization efforts.
Details of the Proposed Base
Israeli officials familiar with the preliminary discussions, speaking to Shomrim and echoed in reports by Ynet and Israel National News, described the base as a large-scale installation in the Gaza envelope region— the area immediately bordering the Strip. Designed to accommodate several thousand troops from multinational contingents, the base would enable these forces to conduct operations inside Gaza to enforce the ceasefire agreement signed earlier this year.
The project’s budget is pegged at approximately $500 million, with U.S. officials already engaging in talks with the Israeli government and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Site surveys for potential locations in the Gaza periphery have commenced in recent weeks, underscoring the initiative’s momentum. If approved and built, this would represent the first permanent, large-scale U.S. military installation on Israeli soil, a stark contrast to the historically limited American troop presence in the country.
Currently, the U.S. maintains a modest footprint in Israel, with about 200 troops stationed at the U.S. Central Command’s Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) in Kiryat Gat, southern Israel. This center was established following the ceasefire to monitor compliance and coordinate activities. During the height of the Gaza conflict—part of the broader “Swords of Iron” operations—the U.S. also deployed a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile battery to bolster Israel’s defenses against Iranian missile barrages.
A Strategic Shift for Israel and U.S. Involvement
Security sources emphasized the profound implications of the plan, describing it as a “major shift” in both Israeli policy and U.S. engagement. “It’s hard to overstate the significance of building such a base,” one official told Shomrim. “Since the Six-Day War, Israel has sought to minimize international involvement in the territories. The establishment of an American base on Israeli soil shows just how determined Washington is to be involved in Gaza and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
This development builds on recent curtailments to Israel’s operational autonomy in Gaza, particularly in humanitarian aid coordination. Reports indicate the CMCC in Kiryat Gat will assume full control over aid distribution—a role previously dominated by Israel’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT)—effectively sidelining the Israeli unit to a peripheral position. This streamlining aims to eliminate bottlenecks that had been leveraged as leverage against Hamas during ceasefire negotiations, as first detailed by The Washington Post.
Dr. Michael Milshtein, a senior researcher at Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center and former head of the IDF’s Palestinian Affairs Division, highlighted the transformative nature of these changes. “The CMCC in Kiryat Gat is set to oversee most of the activity in Gaza,” Milshtein said. “Israel’s status as the central actor in Gaza is about to change.” He noted that early signs of this transition are already evident at the CMCC, where U.S.-led operations are increasingly dictating the pace of ceasefire implementation.
In the U.S., the proposal could ignite domestic political friction. With Republican lawmakers—many aligned with President Donald Trump’s “America First” doctrine—voicing concerns over expanding overseas commitments amid budget strains and public wariness of foreign entanglements, the $500 million outlay may face scrutiny on Capitol Hill. As of publication, the U.S. Embassy in Israel, the Department of Defense, and CENTCOM had not commented on the reports, referring inquiries among themselves.
Political Backlash: Sovereignty Concerns from Israeli Right
The plan has already drawn sharp criticism from segments of Israel’s political spectrum, particularly hardline nationalists who view it as an erosion of sovereignty. Zehut Party Chairman Moshe Feiglin, in an interview with Arutz Sheva published by Israel National News, lambasted the Netanyahu government for what he called a deliberate strategy to cede control to the Americans.
“That was the strategy from the beginning,” Feiglin asserted, pointing to the CMCC in Kiryat Gat as a “symbol of Israel becoming a semi-official client state.” He accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of manipulating Trump, who he claimed envisioned Israel as a “dominant power in the region,” only for Israeli leadership to squander the opportunity due to a “collapse” in national consciousness.
Feiglin went further, alleging that Israel’s reluctance to fully assert control over Gaza—exemplified by not reestablishing Jewish settlements in areas like Gush Katif—led to U.S. dominance, with Hamas retaining power and sovereignty slipping away. “The real tragedy is that Trump understood we didn’t want to take control, so he… ran to manage Gaza because we didn’t want it,” Feiglin said. He dismissed arguments that Netanyahu’s U.S. reliance stems from Israel’s geopolitical constraints, insisting, “The problem isn’t with the Americans; it’s with us. The issue lies in the leadership we choose—Benjamin Netanyahu—and in the right-wing parties’ inability to break free from his coattails.”
Feiglin’s remarks underscore a broader debate in Israel about balancing alliance with autonomy, especially as the ceasefire holds tenuously against ongoing challenges in Gaza and Lebanon.
Broader Implications for Regional Stability
If realized, the base could reshape the dynamics of post-war Gaza, bolstering international efforts to prevent renewed hostilities while potentially diminishing Israel’s unilateral influence over aid and security operations. Proponents see it as a pragmatic step toward sustainable peace, leveraging U.S. resources to address humanitarian crises in the war-torn Strip, where scenes of devastation remain stark—as evidenced by recent images of displaced Palestinians amid the rubble in Bureij camp.
Yet, for Israel, the concessions raise questions about long-term independence in a volatile neighborhood. As one security official put it, this is not just about a base—it’s about the future of control in Gaza. With surveys underway and U.S.-Israeli coordination intensifying, the project appears poised to move from plan to reality, potentially marking a new chapter in the enduring Israeli-Palestinian saga.
