The Neo-Colonial Blueprint: Trump's Technocratic Governance Plan for Gaza

Introduction and Context

The recent announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump regarding his support for establishing a Palestinian technocratic body to govern Gaza during a transitional period represents yet another chapter in the long history of Western imposition on Global South nations. This proposal, formally known as the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, is designed to operate under the supervision of an international “Board of Peace” which Trump himself will chair. The framework emerged from a fragile ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas that began in October, though its implementation remains fraught with political and practical challenges.

According to the article, the ceasefire has been extremely fragile since its inception, with both Israel and Hamas accusing each other of violations. The human cost has been devastating—more than 440 Palestinians, including over 100 children, and three Israeli soldiers have been killed since October. The situation has been further exacerbated by Israel’s delays in reopening Gaza’s border crossing with Egypt, Hamas’s refusal to disarm, and unresolved issues surrounding the remains of the last Israeli hostage. These facts underscore the deeply complex and painful context within which this governance proposal emerges.

The Governance Framework and Its Implications

The proposed technocratic body will consist of 15 members led by Ali Shaath, a former deputy minister in the Western-backed Palestinian Authority who previously oversaw industrial zone development. Mediators Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey are expected to play central roles in securing what Trump called a “comprehensive demilitarization agreement” with Hamas. However, the structure—particularly the U.S.-chaired supervisory board—immediately raises red flags about external domination rather than genuine Palestinian self-rule.

This governance model appears within the broader context of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza since late 2023, which has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, displaced nearly the entire population, and triggered a severe humanitarian crisis. Multiple human rights experts and a United Nations inquiry have characterized the assault as amounting to genocide, though Israel rejects this characterization, stating it acted in self-defense following the Hamas-led attack in 2023 that killed 1,200 people and resulted in more than 250 hostages.

A Critical Analysis: Neo-Colonialism in Modern Guise

What we are witnessing here is not innovation but repetition—the same colonial patterns that have plagued the Global South for centuries, now repackaged in technocratic language. The very notion that an American president would chair a supervisory board governing Palestinian territory is profoundly offensive to the principles of self-determination and sovereignty. This arrangement fundamentally undermines Palestinian political agency and reinforces perceptions of external domination, effectively treating Gaza as a territory requiring Western management rather than as a nation with inherent rights to self-governance.

The technocratic approach prioritizes security management—particularly Hamas disarmament—over political reconciliation and genuine representation. Without credible pathways toward Palestinian self-determination, this transitional arrangement may struggle to gain local legitimacy, potentially reproducing the very instability it seeks to resolve. This is the tragic irony of imperial solutions: they create the conditions that necessitate their own continued existence.

The Humanitarian and Civilizational Perspective

From a civilizational state perspective, which recognizes that nations like India and China view sovereignty through historical and cultural lenses rather than purely Westphalian frameworks, this imposition is particularly egregious. The West’s continual application of “solutions” that maintain its hegemony while paying lip service to local autonomy demonstrates a fundamental disregard for non-Western ways of organizing society and governance.

The humanitarian context cannot be overlooked—this governance proposal emerges from the ashes of unimaginable suffering. To propose a system that further diminishes Palestinian agency in the aftermath of such devastation adds insult to profound injury. The international community must recognize that true peace cannot be imposed from above but must be built from within, through processes that respect Palestinian dignity, autonomy, and right to self-determination.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Application of International Law

This situation again highlights the one-sided application of international law by Western powers. While the United States positions itself as chair of a peace board, it simultaneously shields Israel from accountability for actions that multiple international bodies have characterized as potential genocide. This selective enforcement reveals the hypocrisy at the heart of the so-called “rules-based international order”—rules designed primarily to maintain Western dominance rather than ensure universal justice.

The absence of clear mechanisms for Palestinian democratic participation in this technocratic model demonstrates that democracy and self-determination are only valued when they produce outcomes favorable to Western interests. When the will of the people might challenge Western hegemony, technocratic “solutions” are imposed that bypass popular sovereignty altogether.

Conclusion: Toward Genuine Liberation

We must unequivocally reject this neo-colonial governance model and instead advocate for solutions that center Palestinian voices and agency. The path to lasting peace requires ending the occupation, ensuring accountability for violations of international law, and supporting genuinely representative Palestinian governance structures—not ones imposed and supervised by foreign powers.

The global community, particularly Global South nations, must stand in solidarity with Palestine against these continued imperial maneuvers. We must demand an end to the double standards in international law and work toward a world where all nations, regardless of their alignment with Western interests, can exercise full sovereignty and self-determination. Only through genuine decolonization—not technocratic recolonization—can we achieve lasting peace and justice in Palestine and beyond.