GAZA, (PIC)
As Israel’s military assault on the Gaza Strip appears headed toward further escalation and mounting humanitarian pressure, the contours of a quieter political and security project are beginning to emerge. Rather than aiming to end the war, this project seeks to reshape Gaza geographically and functionally, creating a new administrative and security reality that begins in the eastern areas of the enclave and gradually extends to keep Gaza under sustained Israeli dominance.
According to Palestinian analysts, the plan does not rely on an officially declared partition. Instead, it seeks to manufacture “two Gazas” within a single territory: an eastern zone operating under strict political and security conditions and granted minimal reconstruction and services, and a western zone left under the weight of starvation, bombardment, and humanitarian collapse, a reality designed to push residents forcibly toward the newly engineered model.
While ceasefire negotiations continue to stall and humanitarian indicators deteriorate, observers argue that what is unfolding goes far beyond temporary wartime arrangements. Rather, it represents an attempt to construct a transitional governing structure atop a devastated geography, administered under international supervision but anchored in occupation-linked security oversight.
A “Technocratic Committee” built on the ruins of war
Political analyst and writer Wissam Afifa believes current proposals exceed the notion of temporary civil administration, amounting instead to an effort to establish an alternative governing authority in selected parts of Gaza.
In press remarks, Afifa stated that Nikolay Mladenov, executive director of what is being promoted as the “Peace Council” for Gaza, is advocating the formation of a technocratic administrative committee tasked with governing the Strip. Progress on reconstruction, Israeli withdrawal, or the transfer of authority, he said, would be conditioned on addressing the issue of resistance weapons.
According to Afifa, the proposal rests on a clear premise: the question of arms is treated as a prerequisite for any political or humanitarian process, effectively turning reconstruction itself into a tool of political and security pressure.
The circulating proposals envision the administrative committee entering eastern Gaza areas from which Israeli forces might partially withdraw, assuming responsibility for civil affairs while a newly established police force supported by Arab states is deployed, encouraging civilians to relocate to these zones.
Eastern Gaza: The seed of a “Functional Entity”
Afifa does not view the plan as a mere administrative arrangement. He describes it as an attempt to produce a “transitional governance model” beginning in eastern regions near what is referred to as the “Yellow Line,” eventually evolving into an administrative and security alternative to the existing reality across the rest of Gaza.
The most dangerous aspect of the project, he argues, is that it grants Israel what it failed to impose through direct warfare: the functional division of Gaza without a formal political declaration.
Under this vision, eastern areas would become tightly controlled administrative spaces open to limited, conditional reconstruction, while western Gaza would remain trapped in siege, humanitarian chaos, and continued military escalation.
Afifa nevertheless notes that the plan faces significant obstacles, including the absence of Palestinian political consensus, resistance rejection of the proposed conditions, and the failure to address demands for a full Israeli withdrawal or implementation of the first phase of any comprehensive agreement.
“Internal Migration”: Forcible redistribution of the population
Political analyst Fayez Abu Shamala warns that preparations underway in eastern Gaza amount to far more than the creation of a new administrative zone; they represent a project aimed at re-engineering Gaza’s population distribution.
In press statements, Abu Shamala said the plan would allow the Gaza Administration Committee, headed by Ali Shaath, to operate inside Israeli-controlled eastern areas described as the “Yellow Zone.”
The project, he argues, effectively seeks to push residents out of western Gaza, where destruction is widespread and life’s basic conditions have collapsed, toward newly prepared eastern districts, thereby creating a new demographic reality.
This transformation, he adds, cannot be separated from broader objectives involving property dispossession, the dismantling of the symbolic and political structure of refugee camps, and the reshaping of civilian life in Gaza to align with long-term Israeli strategic visions.
The “Peace Council”: Reproducing control through modern instruments
Political analyst and writer Mohammed Shaheen contends that initiatives promoted under the banner of a postwar “Peace Council” should not be understood as technical reconstruction arrangements. Instead, he argues, they constitute a comprehensive political and security project aimed at reshaping Palestinian national consciousness and producing a functional governance model serving, directly or indirectly, Israel’s vision for Gaza.
Speaking to the PIC correspondent, Shaheen said the plan seeks to recycle traditional mechanisms of control in updated forms by fragmenting Gaza into administrative cantons and isolated zones of influence under the language of “good governance” and “humanitarian administration.” The ultimate aim, he warned, is to hollow out Palestinian national unity and transform society into population clusters subjected to demographic and security engineering.
Gaza, he emphasized, has endured one of the fiercest battles of resilience against destruction and annihilation during the war and cannot be reduced to an “economic peace” model or subjected to political arrangements that diminish national sovereignty under the cover of aid and reconstruction.
Shaheen further argued that the so-called “Peace Council” lacks legal and political legitimacy, bypassing established Palestinian national institutions and contradicting the Palestinian people’s internationally recognized right to self-determination.
Any attempt, he said, to place parts of eastern Gaza under administration conditioned on Israeli approval constitutes a direct assault on Palestinian territorial unity, a violation of the principle of territorial integrity, and an effort to impose disguised political and security guardianship through humanitarian and development mechanisms.
According to Shaheen, these approaches form part of a broader trajectory aimed at entrenching new political realities in Gaza by cultivating an administrative class detached from popular legitimacy, tasked with managing civilian affairs under occupation-imposed security conditions a process that could gradually reshape Palestinian political and social structures.
He concluded that confronting such projects requires rebuilding a unified national framework grounded in Palestinian constants and rejecting any arrangements that undermine sovereignty or reproduce geographic and political fragmentation within Gaza.
