Borders of Gaza: It’s time to Challenge the Taboo
Our hearts shattered this week with joy and gratitude for the release of hostages, sadness for those left behind and the families of those murdered in captivity. We are horrified with the release of murderers and rage at the cynical evil of Hamas. An emotional rollercoaster if there ever was one. Yet, beyond emotions, it’s also time for a cold, hard re-evaluations of basic beliefs, even taboos.
What is the next step? There are still many questions: Will Hamas complete the hostages release to the last? Will the war be over? Who will rule Gaza the “day after”? What positions will the IDF hold? What of Iran and it’s aspirations? One thing is certain, we cannot return to the assumptions and presuppositions of Oct. 6th, 2023. How can we ensure peace? How can we guarantee the region won’t slip again into belligerence, bloodshed and war? It’s time to rethink everything. It’s time for a paradigm shift.
UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed on November 9, 1967, after the Six-Day War, established the “land for peace” formula. This principle, embraced by diplomats, state leaders, analysts, and geopolitical elites globally, was envisioned as the panacea for Middle Eastern peace, particularly between Israel, the Palestinians, and Arab neighbors. Yet, history reveals a stark truth: it never worked.
The resolution’s preamble underscores the “inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war” and the necessity for a just and lasting peace where all states in the area can live securely. This principle resonates with post-World War II international law, particularly the prohibition against using force to alter territorial boundaries, enshrined in UN Article 2(4).
However, the idealism of universal application falters in practice. Since World War II, numerous border changes have occurred due to decolonization, independence movements, conflicts, and diplomatic agreements. Europe witnessed the division and reunification of Germany, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and the peaceful split of Czechoslovakia. Asia saw India’s partition creating Pakistan and later Bangladesh, and China’s integration of Tibet, Hong Kong, and Macau. In Africa, decolonization redrew borders, new countries emerged, notably with Eritrea’s independence from Ethiopia. The Americas saw the Panama Canal Zone return to Panamanian control. Many of these changes involved significant population movements and territorial adjustments.
In the Middle East, outside the Israeli-Arab conflict, border changes included Iraq-Kuwait demarcation post-Gulf War, Saudi-Yemen agreements in 2000, Iran-Iraq border reestablishment after their war, and Cyprus’s division following Turkish invasion, occupation and colonization in 1974. Morocco’s annexation of Western Sahara post-Spanish withdrawal also highlights ongoing territorial disputes. These examples show that borders are far from immutable. Yet, the 1967 borders of Israel—never intended to be permanent—have become sacrosanct, even when breached by acts of belligerence and violence and proven indefensible. Why is Israel never allowed to win territory from which it was attacked?
Resolution 242 is often reduced to its demand for
- Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict [June 1967] and
While ignoring its second principle:
- Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
The emphasis on the first principle without the second has been ineffective. Land concessions by Israel have not resulted in its neighbors’ recognition of its sovereignty or secure boundaries. Egypt’s peace treaty in 1979 and the Abraham Accords—which lacked territorial components—stand as exceptions.
The conflict between Israel and Palestinians has never really been about territory. As Einat Wilf and Adi Schwartz argue in their excellent “The War of Return”, already pre-state, the essential issue for Jews is the establishment of a sovereign state, while for Arabs, it is the complete rejection of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine. As quoted from Ernst Bevin in the Palestine Conference in 1947:
“His Majesty’s Government have thus been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles. There are in Palestine about 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews. For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.”
Still, for the Arabs, the loss of territory is the most painful result of war. Post-1948, Arab states paid territorial prices for wars against Israel: Syria lost the Golan Heights, Jordan the West Bank, and Egypt the Sinai (later regained through peace, not war). Yet, these losses were not recognized. Quite the opposite. Israel was criminalized for winning a war it didn’t start, and its enemies received a clear message: “Your belligerence is tolerated by the world. Go ahead, do it again.” And they did. Every bullied child knows: Failing to exact a cost for violence breeds further violence.
Since the Oslo Accords, Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank, Lebanon, and Gaza have led to increased terrorism and violence. The international community has not held terrorists or their state sponsors accountable, instead pressuring Israel for more concessions. This approach has not only failed to achieve peace but encouraged more violence.
It’s time for a paradigm reversal: No more Land-for-Peace but instead Land-for-War. If a state or non-state actor attacks Israel and violates its sovereignty, Israel should retain and annex part of the territory used for the aggression. A clear global stance against belligerence, with tangible territorial consequences, may pave the way for peace. A 1 km buffer inside the Gaza Strip could serve as a starting point.
Only when the loss of territory is a real consequence for aggression can there be a path to lasting peace.