The Legal and Historical Context of Gaza Strip Sovereignty
The question of whether Israel would invade the Gaza Strip involves a complex interplay of historical, legal, and political factors. To thoroughly understand this scenario, it is essential to delve into the historical context and legal frameworks governing the region.
Historical Context
On May 15, 1948, Egypt, along with other Arab states, initiated a genocidal war against the newly formed State of Israel. This aspect of the conflict is often sidelined in discussions of the Gaza Strip. What is universally recognized is that Egypt was one of the first to invade and occupy the territory that is now the Gaza Strip. This event marked the beginning of a tenuous period of de facto Israeli control over the region, which was formalized following Egypt's withdrawal after the Six-Day War in 1967.
Egypt's Sovereignty Claims
It should be noted that Egypt never claimed sovereignty over the Gaza Strip, which can be interpreted as a recognition of Israel's de facto sovereignty over the region. Egypt's initial invasion and occupation were part of a broader regional conflict, and the subsequent withdrawal of Egyptian forces was in response to the outcome of the Six-Day War.
Legal Framework
The principle of Uti Possidetis Juris is often invoked in discussions of the region. This legal doctrine, which stems from international law, generally suggests that post-colonial borders should be respected to maintain territorial integrity in the absence of explicit agreement otherwise. In the case of Mandatory Palestine, this principle implies that the borders established by the British Mandate should generally be respected after the termination of the mandate.
Mandatory Palestine and Sovereignty
Mandatory Palestine was not a sovereign entity, and the last sovereign party to rule the Gaza Strip was the Ottoman Empire. The region was "decolonized" by the League of Nations following World War I, and the principle of Uti Possidetis Juris would have traditionally preserved the status quo as it existed under the British Mandate.
Israel's Administration and Oslo Accords
Following the Oslo Accords signed in 1993, Israel agreed to allow the PLO to govern the territories it had previously controlled, acting as a proxy for the PLO until a "final status agreement" could be reached. However, this agreement was not universal and did not guarantee the sovereignty of any entity other than Israel. The PLO's inability to establish a cohesive and legitimate government, culminating in the Palestinian-led "al-Aqsa Intifada" and the Hamas' subsequent control of Gaza, further underscored the complexities of governance in the region.
Hamas' Governance and Palestinian Disunity
The 2006 legislative council elections saw Hamas come to power, leading to a division within Palestinian governance. The Palestinian Authority (PA) dismantled the legislative council and Hamas responded by seizing control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007, marking a significant shift in the political landscape of the region.
Conclusion
Given the historical context, legal frameworks, and current political dynamics, it is evident that Israel continues to be the sole de facto sovereign over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The legal and historical context provide a robust framework to understand the complexities of the situation, and it is crucial to recognize the de facto sovereignty that Israel holds over these territories.
Keywords: Gaza Strip, Sovereignty, Israeli Administration