Asymmetric Territorial Politics and The Future of a Nation: Gaza Today!
Amid the rubble that has yet to be swept away, Gaza enters a new chapter—quiet, but decisive. The United States and Israel are discussing a plan to divide Gaza into two zones: a “green zone,” deemed safe and ready for reconstruction, and a “red zone,” left in ruins and designated to hold hundreds of thousands of displaced people.
In technocratic language, this is called post-conflict restructuring. In essence, however, it is one of the most controversial spatial engineering projects in global politics today: the future of an entire city mapped out without the voices of the people who live in it.
Gaza has long been a tragic laboratory of unresolved conflict, deadly embargoes, and sluggish diplomacy. But the two-zone division introduces a new consequence: a spatial hierarchy that decides who receives access to rebuilding, and who is left to survive among the wreckage.
Palestinians who lost their homes are directed into “red zones” with minimal basic services, while reconstructed areas are placed under foreign military control. In such a design, stability takes precedence over sovereignty, and security overrides the rights of the people.
The core question is this: is this reconstruction, or a demographic reordering wrapped in humanitarian language? Gaza seems to be reshaped without waiting for the consent of those born and raised within its borders.
Shadows of History
This division cannot be separated from the long history of forced displacement experienced by Palestinians—from the 1948 Nakba to the exodus of 1967. The difference today lies in the softer vocabulary: evacuation, safe zones, humanitarian corridors.
Yet the outcome remains the same: people are moved from their homes into ever-shrinking spaces. When living spaces are categorized administratively, land rights slowly dissolve without any formal declaration.
The two-zone proposal also reflects the security logic that has become the universal language of international politics. In the name of security, many fundamental principles—territorial sovereignty, the right of return, community-based reconstruction—are pushed aside.
If this model is applied in Gaza and accepted globally as a “practical solution,” it may set a dangerous precedent for other conflict zones: that post-war areas can be mapped unilaterally as long as the process is framed as stabilization.
Meanwhile, Arab states find themselves in a dilemma. They want to help rebuild Gaza, but they do not want to be seen as legitimizing a new political arrangement shaped by Israel and the U.S.
Solidarity becomes complicated when humanitarian actions risk solidifying a political map that disadvantages Palestinians. This tug-of-war leaves Gaza drifting between diplomacy, international pressure, and regional interests.
A Future Seized, Not Rebuilt
At its most human level, Gaza’s struggle returns to a simple question: how can a society live when its physical space is determined by outsiders? This city is not merely a conflict zone; it is a home, a school, a market, a mosque, a space woven with the collective memory of its people.
Zone division threatens that natural cycle: preventing people from returning to their neighborhoods, and limiting rebuilding efforts to areas chosen by international actors.
Today, Gaza stands at the edge of a line—a line dividing reconstruction from reordering, recovery from separation, hope from quiet erasure. The world may see the two-zone split as a technical fix, but for Gazans, it is an existential question.
Whose future is being built? Who will be allowed to return home? Who gets to shape the direction of this shattered city?
Nothing about Gaza is simple. But one thing is certain: a future designed without its people will only prolong the conflict, not resolve it. If the world wishes to write a new chapter for Gaza, it must begin with a space restored alongside the Palestinian people—not with lines drawn across diplomatic tables.
DS
GP 161125 411 1