As we approach the anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas massacre and as the Lebanon conflict spins out of control, the need for some concrete progress toward reducing tensions in Gaza can't be sidelined.
Some Israeli journalists and academics have been discussing quietly a bold, albeit controversial, idea.
The suggestion is that Israel should annex the northern part of Gaza that's already under Israeli control, as a strategic move.
The proposal to annex territory as it stands is unlikely to gain widespread support, especially given Israel's current global image as a violator of human rights.
Any action perceived as further aggression could inflame an already volatile situation.
However, the underlying rationale for the idea is based on the double premise that Israel cannot in the short term eradicate every Hamas fighter but that if Hamas does not decisively lose this conflict, its leader, Yahya Sinwar, could be hailed as a modern-day Saladin, a figure whose influence could inspire further violence and massacres for years, if not centuries.
And Israel needs to arrive at some form of concrete step forward to break out of this deadly cycle of Hezbollah firing rockets into Northern Israel and Hamas fighters using both hostages and civilians as shields leading to mounting civilian casualties, further deepening the tragedy.
Within the controversial suggestion therefore may lie the seeds of a pragmatic solution if the term annexation is dropped and replaced with a more neutral political framework focused on the humanitarian concerns of Palestinians.
The core objective is to create a "safe zone" where Palestinians are free from war and able to engage in a large-scale rebuilding effort.
The strategy wouldn’t be implemented independently, but in parallel with ongoing negotiations for a cease fire and release of hostages.
Crucially, the establishment of a Hamas-free zone would shift the key security focus to the boundary between this zone and southern Gaza and thus tend to moderate the Israeli demands in the hostage negotiation.
While securing the Philadelphia Corridor (a border area with Egypt) remains a strategic goal, Israeli military officials have suggested it could be addressed at a later stage, should weapons continue to flow into Gaza from Egypt.
Israel it should be noted succeeded in building a 420-mile wall in the early 2000s along certain portions of the West Bank to stop terrorist attacks.
Additionally, the northern part of Gaza is closer to Israeli settlements where most of the terrorists attacked on Oct. 7, 2023.
The single, non-negotiable condition for this zone is that it must remain free of Hamas influence. What makes this proposal noteworthy is its feasibility.
It could offer Palestinians a space where they can live without fear of violence, proving that peaceful coexistence is possible when the area is not used as a launchpad for attacks on civilians.
Today it's a sad commentary that even peace-loving Palestinians see Hamas as only the political group that leads instead of stagnates.
The legal framework and labeling of this zone would need to be carefully considered, as it presents a significant challenge.
However, the zone would likely fall under some form of international protection, with Israel playing a key role as the security force to prevent it from reverting into a war zone.
A map showing that Israel has already prepared the northern sector of Gaza to be partitioned into a security zone is attached below.
Such an initiative if properly structured would be presented in a fashion to appeal to an international consortium, spearheaded by the United States, with support from nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
These countries are increasingly concerned that allowing Hamas to continue to exist as a political force and Iran surrogate would empower Iran, destabilizing the region through unchecked violence.
It would only be the extremist anti-Zionist sentiment that would claim Israel’s objective is to gain land in Gaza for itself because no objective observers believes that Israel is fighting this war to obtain more land
To be clearer, this proposal offers four significant advantages:
1. Concrete Progress: It provides a tangible solution to a seemingly endless conflict and can allow Israel to soften its hostage release negotiating position.
2. Safety for Palestinians: It creates a zone where Palestinians can live in safety, with the potential for rebuilding and a better future.
3. Israeli Gains: While not a total victory, Israel could claim significant success in ending Hamas's control in the north.
4. A Message to Extremists: The Arab world, particularly those supporting aggression against Israel, would see that supporting war has real consequences.
In this case, part of the land they hold sacred would be lost.
However, this lost land would not be annexed by Israel but rather transformed into a place of peace and hope for a better life. This zone could serve as a model for what a future Palestinian state might look like — free from violence and focused on prosperity.
The war must end, and Israel cannot afford to lose. This proposal offers a path to break free from the cycle of stagnation, violence, and doubt that has defined the region for far too long.
Mark L. Cohen has his own legal practice and was counsel at White & Case starting in 2001, after serving as international lawyer and senior legal consultant for the French aluminum producer Pechiney. Cohen was a senior consultant at a Ford Foundation Commission, an advisor to the PBS television program "The Advocates," and Assistant Attorney General in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He teaches U.S. history at the business school in Lille l'EDHEC. Read Mark L. Cohen's Reports — More Here.