​In 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 “Gaza Board of Peace” represents a sophisticated linguistic pivot—a transition from the raw violence of military occupation to the sterile, bureaucratic violence of recolonization. By framing the administration of Gaza as a “peace-building” initiative, proponents are attempting to revive the Mandate System of the early 20th century, effectively stripping a population of its agency under the guise of humanitarian necessity.

​To understand the gravity of this moment, we must analyse it not as a temporary security measure, but as a deliberate manifestation of neo-colonialism and a direct assault on the project of decoloniality.

The “civilising mission” and the logic of the mandate

The theoretical foundation of any “Board of Peace” is rooted in what political theorist Frantz Fanon identified as the colonial “civilising mission.” This logic dictates that the colonised subject is inherently “unripe” for self-determination. In this framework, Gaza is viewed not as a political entity with a right to sovereignty, but as a “problem space” that requires external management.

​This mirrors the League 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 “not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.” By proposing a board of external overseers—likely comprised of Western powers or their regional proxies—the international community is attempting to........

© Middle East Monitor