An international municipal authority for Gaza

This “International Municipal Authority” construct proposed for Gaza is intriguing, if utterly alien to the baroque machinations of Middle East diplomacy as conducted hitherto.
Rather than some rote choreography of bilateral talks under international auspices, preoccupied as we are by sectarian borders, imagine a decisive conceptual leap — audacious, even radical, but necessary for stalemated realities.
The fundamental insight is simple: Bypass the stranded “peace process,” ignore zealous ideologues seeking maxims without means, and instead focus on governance in the concrete — administration, commerce, municipal order.
For a city-state with a tradition of cosmopolitan mercantilism, this means a global consortium guaranteeing its development as an entrepot, the charter being stability itself, underwritten multilaterally.
Precedent exists for such extraterritoriality; the Shanghai International Settlement thrived for almost 80 years even amid China’s turmoils. Buttressed by international investment, a Gazan iteration of the concept could eclipse that prototype. Unlike Shanghai, enduring Gazan autonomy requires engagement with organic leadership, even co-opting factions through mutual interest. Any absolutist visions must be disciplined; grand bargains emerge through nuance, not absolutism.
The paradox of order in our time demands recognition of the fact that stability emerges not through grand diplomatic architecture, but through the patient cultivation of practical arrangements. Such governance succeeds precisely where ideology fails: in the quotidian machinery of commerce and administration, where mutual interest forges stronger bonds than proclamations. Through such measured accumulation of functional relationships, sustainable equilibrium takes root.
For the people of Gaza, an international municipal authority would raise living standards without forsaking political identity. For radical Palestinian militants, it bypasses the nonstarter of recognizing Israel before securing practical gains. Indeed, by building administrative capacity from the ground up through business cultivation, such an authority would replicate Singapore’s success.
Crucially for Israel, it furnishes an exit from demographic nightmares via Gaza’s de facto city-state status. If successful, the model could pave the way for broader solutions, obviating the need for quixotic chimeras.

In geopolitics, credibility lies not in airy pronouncements but in on-the-ground facts, forces, and interests. 

Zaid M. Belbagi and James Arnold

The essence of transformative change lies not in sudden rupture but in the steady accretion of practical arrangements. Each modest advance in administrative capacity creates a foundation for broader evolution; each commercial connection strengthens the sinews of stability. Like a Marshall Plan in microcosm, the artistry lies not in grand declarations but in the patient cultivation of institutions that can transform theoretical possibility into tangible reality.
In geopolitics, credibility lies not in airy pronouncements but in on-the-ground facts, forces, and interests, hence the appeal of an international municipal authority. By aligning investor interests and Gazan incentives, organic order can emerge. Bolstered by multilateral guarantees, the heretofore insoluble becomes eminently soluble. The elegance lies in the universality of the underlying principle: Statehood derives not just from politics but practical administration. On such foundational truths, progress builds.
Consider the economic tapestry woven in this way: free trade zones attracting international commerce, maritime facilities reviving ancient trading routes, technology hubs nurturing indigenous innovation. Financial systems that evolve from basic banking to sophisticated digital platforms, while industrial zones are transformed from assembly plants into advanced manufacturing centers. Through such economic evolution, dependency yields to self-sufficiency.
The architecture of governance emerges through the patient accumulation of practical arrangements, each advance strengthening the scaffolding of stability. Administrative capacity grows not through decree but through practice. Institutional strength builds not through proclamation but through daily operation. When governance serves commerce, commerce in turn sustains governance; a virtuous cycle transforming abstract possibility into concrete reality.
The vision is imperfect, the specifics unsettled. Yet by redefining the problem, possibilities arise. This is the essence of statecraft: imagination but rooted in reality, elevating tension management to conflict resolution. The international municipal authority proposal does precisely that and consequently, despite its novelty, merits consideration. At the very least, it brings much-needed creativity to the long, hard road ahead.

• Zaid M. Belbagi is a political commentator and an adviser to private clients between London and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

• James Arnold is a financier and geopolitical strategist.