\u200bIn the lexicon of modern geopolitics, language is rarely used to describe reality; more often, it is used to camouflage it. The emergence of proposals such as a \u201cGaza Board of Peace\u201d represents a sophisticated linguistic pivot\u2014a transition from the raw violence of military occupation to the sterile, bureaucratic violence of\u00a0recolonization. By framing the administration of Gaza as a \u201cpeace-building\u201d initiative, proponents are attempting to revive the\u00a0Mandate System\u00a0of the early 20th century, effectively stripping a population of its agency under the guise of humanitarian necessity.<\/p>\n
\u200bTo understand the gravity of this moment, we must analyse it not as a temporary security measure, but as a deliberate manifestation of\u00a0neo-colonialism\u00a0and a direct assault on the project of\u00a0decoloniality.<\/p>\n
The \u201ccivilising mission\u201d and the logic of the mandate<\/p>\n
The theoretical foundation of any \u201cBoard of Peace\u201d is rooted in what political theorist Frantz Fanon identified as the colonial \u201ccivilising mission.\u201d This logic dictates that the colonised subject is inherently \u201cunripe\u201d for self-determination. In this framework, Gaza is viewed not as a political entity with a right to sovereignty, but as a \u201cproblem space\u201d that requires external management.<\/p>\n
\u200bThis mirrors the\u00a0League of Nations Mandate system, particularly the Class A Mandates established after World War I. These mandates were predicated on the idea that certain territories were inhabited by people \u201cnot yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.\u201d By proposing a board of external overseers\u2014likely comprised of Western powers or their regional proxies\u2014the international community is attempting to re-establish a\u00a0trusteeship model. This is a profound regression; it replaces the legal right to self-determination with a conditional \u201csupervised\u201d existence, where \u201cpeace\u201d is defined solely as the absence of resistance to the dominant order.<\/p>\n
READ:\u00a0Israel says Gaza administration committee was announced without coordination<\/a><\/p>\n Neo-colonialism and the \u201cmanagement\u201d of Gaza<\/p>\n Where 19th century imperialism sought the direct extraction of resources,\u00a0neo-colonialism\u00a0functions through the control of infrastructure, borders, and political legitimacy. A \u201cGaza Board of Peace\u201d would serve as the ultimate neo-colonial apparatus.<\/p>\n \u200bBy internationalizing the administration of Gaza, the occupying power and its allies can outsource the moral and logistical costs of control. This creates a \u201cbuffer of legitimacy.\u201d If the board is composed of multiple nations, the specific accountability of the colonizer is diluted into a nebulous \u201cinternational responsibility.\u201d This is what Achille Mbembe describes as\u00a0necropolitics\u2014the exercise of sovereignty through the power to dictate who may live and who must die, now managed through a sanitised committee of \u201cexperts\u201d and \u201cpeacekeepers.\u201d<\/p>\n \u200bThe board becomes a mechanism to:<\/p>\n \u200bDepoliticise the struggle:\u00a0It transforms a fundamental fight for national liberation into a series of \u201ctechnical challenges\u201d (e.g., waste management, caloric intake, border logistics). The racial underpinnings of the \u201cpeace\u201d framework<\/p>\n One cannot discuss recolonisation without addressing the inherent\u00a0racism\u00a0that facilitates it. The \u201cBoard of Peace\u201d proposal relies on a racialized hierarchy of sovereignty. It assumes that Palestinian lives are \u201cgovernable\u201d only through external coercion.<\/p>\n \u200bThis is an extension of\u00a0Edward Said\u2019s Orientalism, where the \u201cEast\u201d is portrayed as perpetually chaotic and irrational, requiring the \u201crational West\u201d to impose order. The refusal to allow Palestinians to lead their own reconstruction or govern their own borders is a statement of racial distrust. It suggests that the indigenous population cannot be trusted with the tools of modernity\u2014airports, seaports, or a standing police force\u2014because their \u201cnature\u201d is inherently threatening. This racialisation justifies the \u201cpermanent temporary\u201d nature of the occupation, where the goalposts for \u201creadiness for independence\u201d are constantly moved.<\/p>\n
\n\u200bFragment identity:\u00a0By treating Gaza as a separate administrative unit from the rest of the Palestinian territories, it furthers the colonial strategy of \u201cdivide and rule,\u201d preventing the realization of a unified Palestinian state.<\/p>\n