Israel-Gaza war: why a UN-backed trusteeship may be best way to end 75-year stalemate
- A transitional administration could ensure security, work towards reconstruction and lay foundations for political stability and economic development
- Such a solution would give hope to Palestinians – and reassure the Israeli government that Hamas and other extremist groups cannot return to Gaza
For more than 75 years, too many opportunities to achieve lasting peace have been squandered, whether through the intransigence of some, the extremist excesses of others, the unbalanced commitment of a third party or even global disinterest in the conflict.
These developments, including an apparent determination by the US to re-engage its efforts to bring about lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians as thousands die in the conflict, require an examination of what would be the most effective course of action.
The least bad option?
Obviously, the chances of success may seem remote. But what are the alternatives? A return to the pre-October 7 status quo would mean accepting the more or less long-term repetition of a new cycle of appalling violence.
Eliminating the threat posed by Hamas cannot be achieved by Israel’s reoccupation of the Gaza Strip, and even less by the disappearance of all Palestinians from the enclave, as suggested by the most radical elements on the Israeli political scene.
The return of a moribund and ineffective Palestinian Authority in the wake of Israel’s military operations in Gaza is not credible and doomed to failure.
Arab countries in the region don’t want to assume responsibility for the security and administration of Gaza, while interference by a single major foreign power like the US would constitute a form of imperialism.
Faced with these unthinkable options, the best – or least bad – solution seems to be to consider setting up a transitional administration in Gaza with three objectives: to ensure security, to work towards reconstruction and to lay the foundations for political stability and economic development.
To ensure legitimacy and a mandate, such an administration would have to rest on two pillars involving the UN Security Council: a regional agreement under Chapter 8 of the UN Charter on one side, and the implementation of a peace-enforcement force based on Chapter 7 to restore order and ensure security on the other.
Such a multinational approach would give hope to Gazans and reassure the Israeli government that Hamas and other extremist groups cannot return.
Australia, New Zealand, Canada break with US to call for Gaza ceasefire
In the long term, it could even encourage the emergence of a full and functional administration of the territory, offering the concrete prospect of a political solution to the long-standing dispute with the creation of a future Palestinian state – starting with Gaza and extending to the West Bank.
The success of such an approach, as was the case in the past in Bosnia and Kosovo – involving Nato and the European Union – depends on the creation of a peacekeeping force with a strong mandate from the UN Security Council.
This force would have to be large enough to ensure security and, if necessary, impose peace – meaning at least 50,000 well-armed, well coordinated UN troops, with clear rules of engagement, provided by the countries involved (excluding Russia, for obvious reasons) and placed under a single command designated by the council, as was the case during the Korean war.
This last requirement is necessary to avoid any repetition of the catastrophic scenario of the failed intervention in Somalia in 1993. The creation of such a well-integrated and well-organised military structure is absolutely essential to avoid any paralysis in decision-making.
Gaza’s economic prospects
Rebuilding Gaza and offering economic prospects to its inhabitants will obviously require considerable financial resources.
The transitional administration, or even a revamped Trusteeship Council, would need to raise substantial sums of money and report regularly on how these funds are being used, as well as on developments in the security of the region.
These funds could come from the usual Western powers, but also from the wealthy Gulf countries, which might be prepared to help Palestinians financially without having to become too involved politically at the risk of damaging their improving relations with Israel.
The security of the Middle East as a whole is at stake, and taking action could also help ease tensions within Western societies that are increasingly divided by the conflict
The most cynical or pessimistic may argue that setting up such an initiative is too complex and doomed to failure.
He should solicit the support of our powerful neighbour and convince the US to invest in command infrastructure for this new mission, which would likely be instrumental in reassuring Israel about the seriousness of such an approach.
Canada-India row over murdered Sikh complicates West’s bid to counter China
Georges Clemenceau, head of the French government at the end of World War I, once said that it’s easier to make war than peace. The protracted nature of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict bears witness to this.
But given the mass-scale violence in the region on and since October 7, there’s an urgent need for the world to determine how to build a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
It also provides Canada an opportunity to truly “make a comeback” on the international stage. Helping resolve the conflict is closely tied to Canadian values.
