In the aftermath of the current war with Hamas in which more than 120 hostages from Israel have been held captive or killed in Gaza, it seems essential that the State of Israel and Palestine agree on a peacekeeping settlement that would facilitate the long-term stability of Israel and Palestine.
Future governance of Gaza
The future governance of Gaza remains contingent on a complex interplay of local, regional, and international factors. There are several possible ways forward for Gaza’s peaceful and permanent governance.
1. Continued governance by the State of Israel
Israel’s governance of the Gaza Strip, if it continues, will involve the same main objective, that of removing Hamas from its position as the governing authority, and destroying its military infrastructure, steps which Israel regards as essential to the future security and stability of the State of Israel. Over a longer period, if Hamas successfully gets removed from governance and significantly diminished as a military force, there may be a possibility of withdrawing the Israel Defense Force’s ground troops. This would mean that peace could be restored to both nations.
Nonetheless, Israel’s continued governance of Gaza may put its troops at risk, as was the case in the past. Israel is well within its rights to act as a protecting power under Article Nine of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Though of course, prolonged occupation without progress toward sovereignty for the Palestinian population would be questionable, according to that same Fourth Geneva Convention (1949).
2. Governance by the Palestinian Authority
The Palestinian Authority was created because of the Oslo Accords and has governed parts of the West Bank in recent decades. Currently, the Palestinian Authority has little power. Israel may therefore be reluctant to cede control of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority. We believe that with appropriate international support and technical assistance, the Palestinian Authority can be strengthened, by first not merely allowing but encouraging the Presidential elections which had been suspended in 2021 to proceed. This would encourage the acceptance of the Palestinian Authority’s governance by a majority of the Palestinians. In Gaza, the Palestinian Authority could both be ceded control of the police force and act as administrators. Israel’s government could pass its power in the Gaza Strip to a well-supported Palestinian local administration appointed by the newly elected Palestinian President.
3. Multinational Force
The United Nations, as an international peacekeeping force or some other group of multinational forces, could provide security and temporarily administer Gaza during an interim period to foster the establishment of a long-term, stable, and peaceful political solution. Broad international consensus and cooperation would be required, and there will be difficulties in finding countries that would willingly commit resources to the sustainable governance of Gaza. The Next Century Foundation therefore recommends participation from the Republic of Türkiye, the European Union, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Dominion of Canada, who are countries and regions that could both contribute troops and be actively involved in the Middle East peace efforts through diplomatic initiatives.
4. A protectorate
The future of Gaza could involve placing the area under the administration of an external power or international body to aid with managing governance and maintaining security, aiming for stability and development. A protectorate is an option. The possibilities are as follows:
A United Nations protectorate
Temporary United Nations’ governance was successful before, for instance, with East Timor (1999-2001) whereby being a United Nations protectorate allowed it to gain autonomy from Indonesia and establish stable governance and infrastructure. During which, the United Nations reshaped the country’s politics by organising elections, resulting in the formation of a democratic government. A similar action might be taken in Gaza if it becomes a United Nations protectorate. Nevertheless, there are possibilities that regional intervention by the United Nations may not lead to success as was the case of the peacekeeping force that was driven away in Mali.
A Western-led multinational protectorate
The United States of America and the United Kingdom could temporarily undertake the Gaza Strip’s governance as part of a multinational approach to peacekeeping. Historically, Palestine was a British protectorate for thirty years, after World War I; during that time, infrastructure and administrative developments were significant but there were failures in creating a viable indigenous government in Palestine, leaving the region’s future to be determined by war. As a result, the Western powers may be viewed as hostile, and attempts to temporarily govern Gaza by the West may conflict with Gaza residents’ needs, possibly leading to anti-Western attacks.
A Peace process
The Israel-Palestine peace process is vital and challenging, yet achievable with support from the international community and if the Palestinian Authority and Israel’s government put in concrete effort.
The State of Israel will first need to commit to taking a brave and serious step towards formally recognising the Palestinian state to ensure security for both Israel and the Palestinians; this is the only viable way to reach lasting peace and should not be against anyone’s interest. This would be a necessary commencement to the two-state solution, which would keep the State of Israel from being regarded as an apartheid state, which it might have been if it followed the one-state solution, with an unsustainable future globally and even more serious threats from Hamas and others regionally.
A new political body could, at the same time, be formed in Gaza where all moderate Palestinian political forces participate, tasked with appointing temporary leaders and a government. Preparation for presidential elections within Palestine should be supported by the State of Israel at the earliest opportunity and these should be held to reinforce strong, democratic governance.
The Next Century Foundation also suggests that the peace process includes not only the State of Israel and Palestine but also other Middle Eastern countries to focus on establishing a comprehensive regional peace process. Something similar to the Madrid Conference (1991) is needed. This broader negotiation, unlike the bilateral peace process in the Oslo Accords (1993-1995), would allow the State of Israel to extract concessions from the Gulf Cooperation Council states in return for the negotiations for a stable Middle East. Hence, if a new conference can encourage full participation by the Gulf Cooperation Council, it would be advantageous to the State of Israel in the long run.
A new Madrid-type Conference could be held, for instance in Vienna with Austria’s comparatively neutral political stance, with the presence of representatives from the United Nations Security Council states: the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the French Republic, Russian Federation and People’s Republic of China. The State of Israel also needs to facilitate Arab states’ engagement on the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative and respect it as the basis for discussion. This after all could result in the State of Israel being recognised more broadly by the international community which would allow for a more well-defined sovereignty and territorial integrity of the state within the Middle Eastern region, leading to the isolation of Hamas diplomatically as well as cutting support it receives. The formal recognition of the State of Israel by the Gulf Cooperation Council states should happen concurrently with its recognition of Palestine to make the peace process more effective.
To move forward with the two-state solution, land-swaps concept should be considered to formalise the boundary of the Palestinian territories. Any land offered to Palestine should ideally be valuable culturally and historically to the Palestinians, with some strategic importance. This would help the Palestinians to have a contiguous state. For example, a corridor between Gaza and the West Bank, and/or making Gaza more viable by widening the Gaza strip. However, the land should not be so valuable that Israel will be disadvantaged by losing it. Henceforth, compromise and negotiation are key. Here, it might be in Israel’s interest to consider traditional mediators, for instance, the United States of America to ensure no violence and that a peace deal is smoothly reached, or an Arab State such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia so that the State of Israel could be at a better position to extract concessions from the Arab League. For this effort to be concrete, Israel’s ground troops should also be withdrawn from the new Palestinian territories after its recognition to respect the territorial integrity of the Palestinians, while the security of the border with Israel should still be maintained.
After the territory of the new state of Palestine becomes more well-defined, continued peace negotiations with the future newly elected President of the Palestinian Authority, in addition to the two-state solution, which allows for complete self-governance will be to Israel’s advantage allowing Israel to pave its way toward a more sustainable future, stability, and peace.
