Has Palestine exercised effective control over Gaza and West Bank?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Palestinian authorities do not exercise effective control of the Gaza Strip or most of the West Bank as of late 2025: UN and independent bodies report Israel controls military, security and large swaths of territory in both areas (ICJ, UN Commission of Inquiry, OCHA) [1] [2] [3]. Key legal and policy bodies — the International Court of Justice, UN bodies and several governments — describe Israel’s measures as amounting to occupation and expanding Israeli control, while international plans endorsed by the UN foresee Israel and international actors running Gaza’s stabilization and excluding Palestinian factions from operational roles [1] [4] [5].
1. What “effective control” means and who says it’s lacking
International law tests effective control by looking at whether an authority actually administers territory, security, and public life. Multiple high‑level sources conclude Palestinians lack that degree of control: the ICJ and the UN Commission of Inquiry report that Israeli authorities exercise extensive control over Gaza and the West Bank — including security operations, buffer zones and enlargement of areas under Israeli authority that affect civilian life — undermining Palestinian self‑rule [1] [2]. The UK government and UN OCHA likewise describe the situation as occupation, noting Israel’s degree of control over the Occupied Palestinian Territory [6] [3].
2. Gaza: control, buffer zones and exclusion from governance
Reporting and legal findings show Gaza’s territory and life remain under heavy external control. The UN Commission of Inquiry found Israeli measures expanded areas under Israeli control to about 75 percent of Gaza by July 2025, shrinking Palestinian capacity to exercise public authority [2]. The ICJ warned that plans to extend occupation or impose an external administration over Gaza would violate Palestinians’ right to self‑determination [1]. The UN Security Council’s endorsement of a U.S.‑backed “Comprehensive Plan” assigns operational and stabilization roles to a Board and an international stabilization force while explicitly excluding Palestinian political factions from operational roles inside Gaza, leaving Palestinian institutions marginalized [4] [5].
3. West Bank: fragmented authority and Israeli security control
The West Bank remains legally and practically fragmented. Under existing agreements and by administrative practice, Israel retains full administrative and security control over Area C — roughly 60 percent of the West Bank — limiting Palestinian Authority jurisdiction [7]. The UN Commission of Inquiry documents Israeli policies that expand settlements, support settler activity and pursue measures the Commission says aim to entrench permanent control and effect demographic changes that impede Palestinian statehood [2]. OCHA and other UN reporting describe demolitions, displacement and restrictions that erode the PA’s capacity to govern across the territory [3] [8].
4. Palestinian Authority (PA) capacity and constraints
The Palestinian Authority continues to provide some civil services in Areas A and B and financial and institutional functions, but its capacity is constrained by territorial fragmentation, loss of revenues and external restrictions. International actors pressing for a reformed PA to return to Gaza highlight that weakening the PA undermines its ability to deliver services or assume responsibilities envisioned in Security Council Resolution 2803 [9] [4]. Several sources emphasize that political divisions, external occupation dynamics and international plans that exclude Palestinian factions limit any restoration of full Palestinian control [5] [4].
5. Competing legal and political narratives
There are competing narratives among states and institutions. The ICJ and UN fact‑finding reports frame Israeli measures as occupation, potential annexation and unlawful control that violate Palestinians’ rights [1] [2]. Some Security Council and state diplomacy — for example, the Council’s endorsement of a U.S.‑backed plan and supportive statements about a reformed PA — envision a route for Palestinian administration under heavy international and Israeli oversight, effectively preserving non‑Palestinian authority over key functions [4] [5]. National governments, such as the UK, have recognized Palestine while explicitly noting Israel’s degree of control amounts to occupation [6].
6. Ground reality and humanitarian impact
Operational control on the ground translates into humanitarian consequences: schools, health and movement are disrupted, hundreds of thousands displaced, and aid constrained; UN agencies and OCHA call for lifting restrictions and report major displacement and shortages in Gaza and coercive environments in parts of the West Bank [3]. Human Rights Watch and other monitors document closures of crossings, restricted exits and lethal military operations that further limit Palestinian mobility and governance capacity [10] [11].
7. Limits of this account and what’s not in current reporting
Available sources document control patterns through 2025 but do not provide a single, universally accepted legal verdict on every locality; assessments vary by institution and political actor [1] [6] [4]. Sources do not discuss every municipal‑level function or list precisely which Palestinian agencies retain full operational capacity in each West Bank municipality — those granularities are not found in the current reporting (not found in current reporting).
Bottom line: authoritative international reporting and legal bodies find that Palestinians do not exercise effective sovereign control over Gaza or most of the West Bank; instead, Israeli military, administrative and settlement policies — now reinforced by international stabilization plans that exclude Palestinian factions from operational roles — preserve external control and limit Palestinian governance [1] [2] [4] [5].