ABSTRACT
This chapter examines what options are available for administering Gaza “the day after” the conflict ends. It discusses first the idea that the United Nations (UN) should assume administration of Palestine as a UN “trusteeship” for the territory. The chapter explains why that is not a good idea, as it would be opposed by Palestinians, as well as by the current Israeli and American governments. But other UN avenues might be usefully explored, the chapter explains. The UN, since 1962, has had a few experiences in administering territory as a governing authority – temporarily. In some instances, the UN has had direct and full administrative responsibility and functioned for a short time as the one and only governing authority over the territory. In other cases, the UN shared governing responsibilities. The chapter advocates that the UN's experience in these examples should be examined for lessons learned, which, in turn, might be useful in arranging for post-conflict governance of Gaza, not Palestine writ large. The chapter notes that these experiences could be of value even if non-UN international organizations are tasked to assume the administration of Gaza. Such arrangements could be “blessed” by UN bodies and thus acquire more international credibility and acceptance. In all events, it is stressed that whatever arrangements are devised, they must include a robust “anti-terrorist” security component as well as a civilian administrative component, and be agreed upon by the State of Palestine, Israel, neighboring Arab States, and all relevant stakeholders.
