Gaza and the Geography of Injustice: How Land, Power, and Displacement Shape a Lasting Conflict
Prof. Dr. Zahurul Aam :
The Gaza Strip occupies a narrow stretch of land on the eastern Mediterranean, yet it sits at the heart of one of the world’s most enduring and emotionally charged conflicts.
For Palestinians, Gaza represents confinement, dispossession, and repeated displacement. For Israel, it is a volatile security frontier shaped by wars, militant attacks, and regional instability.
For the United States, Gaza lies within a broader strategic framework involving alliance commitments, regional influence, and global power politics.
At the core of Gaza’s crisis is land: its ownership, control, access, and political meaning. The struggle over land in Gaza is not simply about property or borders; it is about sovereignty, identity, security, and justice.
Over decades, disputes over territory have produced deep disparities and repeated displacement, fueling cycles of violence whose consequences extend far beyond this densely populated enclave.
The land question in Gaza cannot be understood without reference to the upheavals of 1948, when the establishment of Israel was accompanied by war and the displacement of around 700,000 Palestinians.
Many fled or were expelled from towns and villages that became part of the new Israeli state. Tens of thousands sought refuge in Gaza, which was then administered by Egypt.
These refugees lost homes, farmland, and businesses. Although many retained deeds, documents, or family histories tied to their original properties, they were unable to return.
Camps that were initially intended as temporary shelters evolved into permanent, crowded urban settlements.
Over generations, the absence of restitution or compensation produced a society that was land-poor, densely populated, and economically fragile.
The 1967 war further transformed Gaza’s territorial reality when Israel took control of the Strip. For decades, land-use regulations, security zones, and settlement activity shaped daily life.
Critics argue that these policies restricted Palestinian access to land and resources, while Israeli authorities have consistently framed them as necessary for security. Regardless of interpretation, the cumulative effect was a further narrowing of Palestinian control over space.
In 2005, Israel dismantled its settlements and withdrew permanent military forces from Gaza under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
The move was widely described as disengagement, and supporters argued it marked the end of occupation. Yet Israel retained control over Gaza’s airspace, coastline, and most border crossings.
Following the takeover of Gaza by Hamas in 2007, Israel, along with Egypt, imposed varying degrees of blockade.
These restrictions significantly limited the movement of people and goods. Critics describe this arrangement as a form of “externalized occupation,” arguing that control exercised from outside the territory still determines Gaza’s economic and political life. Israel counters that border controls are a legitimate response to security threats, including rocket attacks.
The debate over Gaza’s status remains unresolved. While Israel disputes the claim that Gaza is occupied, many international legal scholars argue that effective control, rather than physical presence, defines occupation.
Beyond legal terminology, however, the lived reality for Gaza’s population is one of restricted mobility, limited economic opportunity, and persistent insecurity.
The consequences of displacement and land deprivation are visible everywhere in Gaza. It is one of the most densely populated territories in the world, with much of its population descended from refugees registered with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East.
Limited land availability constrains housing, agriculture, and industry. Buffer zones along Gaza’s perimeter restrict access to fertile farmland, while repeated conflicts have destroyed neighborhoods and infrastructure.
Disparity is not only economic but also political. Israel exercises full sovereign authority within its recognized borders, while Palestinians in Gaza lack sovereign statehood, independent border control, or access to lands from which their families were displaced.
This asymmetry sustains powerful narratives of injustice and grievance, shaping political attitudes across generations.
Israeli and American policies toward Gaza are often scrutinized for signs of coordinated territorial strategy. Israeli governments emphasize deterrence and security as their primary objectives.
The United States, as Israel’s closest ally, frames its support in terms of regional stability, counterterrorism, and diplomacy.
Critics, however, argue that long-term strategic alignment has enabled territorial consolidation that undermines Palestinian land claims.
While Gaza itself no longer contains Israeli settlements, broader patterns of territorial fragmentation through border control, military zones, and policies affecting the West Bank shape the political horizon.
These “facts on the ground” influence any future negotiations over sovereignty.
For Washington, strong alignment with Israeli policy carries costs as well as benefits.
Perceptions of bias weaken U.S. credibility as a mediator and complicate relations with Arab and Muslim-majority societies. In a Middle East marked by shifting alliances and great-power competition, prolonged instability in Gaza poses a strategic liability.
The land dispute in Gaza reverberates across the region. The Palestinian cause remains a potent symbol, and perceived land expropriation fuels public anger far beyond Gaza’s borders. This sentiment complicates diplomatic normalization efforts between Israel and its neighbors.
Persistent displacement and deprivation also create fertile ground for radicalization. Militant groups frame territorial loss as an existential struggle, while recurring violence hardens attitudes within Israel. Each escalation deepens mistrust and narrows political space for compromise.
At the same time, long-term humanitarian aid risks institutionalizing crisis conditions. Generations raised in refugee camps may inherit structural marginalization, reinforcing instability. International actors face a dilemma: how to alleviate suffering without perpetuating political stalemate.
From a narrow security perspective, territorial control can offer short-term advantages. Surveillance, buffer zones, and border dominance may reduce immediate threats. Yet the strategic costs of perceived expansion or permanent control are substantial. They erode international legitimacy, intensify resistance, and entangle allies in prolonged conflict.
A durable resolution to Gaza’s crisis cannot emerge from unilateral measures alone. It requires confronting core grievances: recognition of historical displacement, credible mechanisms for compensation or restitution, security guarantees for Israel and genuine political sovereignty for Palestinians.
Without meaningful progress on land and sovereignty, disparity and displacement will continue to define Gaza’s reality. Ceasefires may pause violence, but they cannot resolve a conflict rooted in geography and justice.
The future stability of the Middle East depends not merely on managing crises, but on addressing the land question at the heart of Gaza, one that has shaped the region’s politics for nearly eight decades and will continue to do so unless it is finally confronted with honesty and courage.
(The author is Dean School of Business Canadian University
of Bangladesh)
