Gaza Rafah Clearance: Is an IDF 'Phased Withdrawal' Likely?

Talk of an imminent, orderly IDF phased withdrawal from Rafah following clearance operations has begun to circulate. The available public record through mid-May 2025 suggests those claims are optimistic, and that any pullback from Rafah would be conditional, partial, and politically driven rather than the natural culmination of a tactical clearing operation.

On the ground facts matter. In April 2025 Israeli forces completed seizure of the so-called Morag Corridor, effectively encircling Rafah and separating it from Khan Younis. That maneuver was presented by Israeli officials as a strategic step to fragment Hamas control and to deny cross-strip movement and smuggling routes.

Israeli political and military statements since the Morag operation have emphasized consolidation and buffer zones, not rapid exit. Defense Ministry and government rhetoric has framed the newly secured axes as security zones to be held to prevent reconstitution of militant networks and to pressure Hamas over hostages and disarmament. International reporting has documented plans to expand territorial control and to institutionalize larger buffer areas along the border, language that is inconsistent with an immediate, comprehensive withdrawal from areas such as Rafah.

Operational reporting by the IDF also undercuts the idea of a quick leave. Unit press releases through May describe continued clearance activity in Rafah neighborhoods, the finding and dismantling of weapons caches near civilian infrastructure, and ongoing efforts to eliminate subterranean infrastructure. Those communiqués signal that the military views Rafah as an active theater requiring sustained effort rather than an area where operations are complete and forces can simply stand down.

That is not to say the IDF has never moved forces out of Rafah. The record shows tactical redeployments in response to ceasefire arrangements earlier in 2025, when limited withdrawals and handing over of certain crossing responsibilities took place as part of negotiated pauses. Those precedents indicate that political agreements, hostage deals, or international pressure can produce timebound pullbacks. But these were negotiated, conditional steps, not an index of a durable, unilateral policy of withdrawal.

Putting these elements together, a realistic assessment for mid-May 2025 is that a so-called phased withdrawal from Rafah would require at least one of three drivers: a binding political deal that guarantees Israel’s security concerns, credible international guarantees for border security and border control, or a decisive change in Israeli domestic politics that shifts strategy away from territorial consolidation. In the absence of such a trigger, operational imperatives and political messaging point toward consolidation, not withdrawal.

Policy implications are consequential. If Israel holds parts of Rafah as part of an extended buffer or security zone, the humanitarian and governance vacuum will deepen. International actors seeking to stabilize Gaza would have to accept deployment patterns that keep Israeli forces inside or adjacent to Gaza for a prolonged period, or else negotiate a robust multinational presence with clear rules of engagement and authority to control the Philadelphi and Morag axes. Absent effective international mechanisms, holding territory creates long-term occupation risks and an expanded set of responsibilities for Israel, with attendant diplomatic costs.

Conversely, if pressure—domestic, regional, or diplomatic—forces a phased withdrawal, the conditions of that pullback will determine whether it is stabilizing or merely a repositioning that leaves the same underlying security problems unresolved. Withdrawal without verified disarmament, monitoring, and an enforceable international presence risks reversion to a contested status quo where militant groups can reconstitute capabilities.

For analysts and policymakers, the takeaway is simple. Public talk of a straightforward phased IDF withdrawal from Rafah as of mid-May 2025 should be treated skeptically. The evidence on posture, public statements, and operational activity points toward consolidation unless a credible, enforceable political bargain changes the calculus. Any meaningful movement toward withdrawal will be a political event as much as a military one, and the details of guarantees, timelines, and verification will determine whether it becomes a stabilizing transition or a temporary repositioning with limited strategic benefit.