Should Gaza's Sovereignty Be Sacrificed for Regional Peace?

A detailed analysis by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) highlights that Hamas has used Gaza’s sovereign territory to construct a 500+ kilometer tunnel network, storing weapons and launching attacks from civilian areas. The report argues that without a temporary external administration or security control, Israel’s ability to neutralize this infrastructure is severely limited, as operations in urban centers lead to high civilian casualties. The authors note that a transitional international force, albeit controversial, has historical precedent (e.g., in Bosnia) and could provide the security window needed to rebuild governance.

A policy paper from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy cites UN and ID data showing that since 2007, Hamas has launched over 20,000 rockets from Gaza, many from residential zones, using sovereignty as legal cover. The paper argues that Palestinian statehood cannot be achieved while Hamas controls Gaza, as its charter explicitly rejects Israel’s existence. It recommends a phased sovereignty suspension under a UN-mandated trusteeship, similar to Kosovo’s transitional administration, to enable disarmament and economic reconstruction, citing that current ‘sovereignty’ only perpetuates a cycle of violence and blockade.

A report by Amnesty International documents that the lack of a truly sovereign Palestinian state—with Israel controlling borders, airspace, and maritime access—has directly enabled Hamas’s rise and radicalization. The report cites that 70% of Gazans live below the poverty line, and over 80% of youth are unemployed, creating a recruitment pool for militants. It argues that sacrificing sovereignty would not end terrorism but would institutionalize apartheid, as Israel’s military control without legal accountability would lead to more human rights abuses, as seen in the West Bank. The evidence shows that security for Israel is only sustainable through equal sovereignty and a negotiated two-state solution.

A peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, based on data from the UN OCHA and the World Bank, argues that any suspension of Gaza’s sovereignty would violate international law under the ourth Geneva Convention, as it would constitute a hostile occupation without legal basis. The study highlights that past ‘transitional administrations’ (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan) failed to reduce violence and instead led to prolonged instability. Using case studies, it shows that denying self-determination is a root cause of terrorism, not a solution. The authors conclude that only a genuine two-state framework, with mutual security guarantees and an end to the blockade, can achieve sustainable peace, citing a 30% reduction in attacks during the 1993–2000 Oslo period when sovereignty was being negotiated.