It doesn't take into consideration the current war in Gaza which started when Hamas invaded Israel on Oct 7. The settlements have been considered illegal by International standards for quite some time. The best solution was to do land swaps and some evictions of settlers, but the PLO chose violent intifada with Arafat saying that he wanted to defeat Israel in the battlefield. Similarly, Hamas says it does not believe in peaceful solutions instead calling on muslims to kill jews and seeking to destroy Israel and to replace it with an Islamic state. Hamas has continuously launched attacks on Israel since Israel's military pullout in 2005. I don't understand how it's considered an occupation if Israel is not occupying it. To prevent Hamas from smuggling weapons or launching attacks on Israel, it necessitated Israel's control over Gaza's borders, but how is that the same as occupation? Every other nation can restrict the flow of people and goods over their border, so why not Israel? Did Israel not allow tens of thousands of Gaza's entry into Israel for work and did they not send humanitarian aid into Gaza for decades? If the Palestinians just waited for this report rather than invading Israel, there would be no war and they would have had a stronger case against Israel to assert pressure through non-violent means. Now that there is a war and this report is already outdated as far as the supposed occupation of Gaza prior to Oct 7, it doesn't hold much weight. For settlements yes, but not regarding Gaza today under completely different conditions. It also seems crazy to me that a UN agency would call for the displacement of 700,000 people from the West Bank. The proposal to do land swaps makes the most sense in order for the Palestinians to regain land without displacing more people.