Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Palestinians inspect the destruction after Israeli airstrike hit Bank of Palestine in Gaza Strip Palestinians inspect the destruction after Israeli airstrike hit Bank of Palestine in Gaza Strip on September 24, 2025.
- IMAGO/APAimages via Reuters Connect
After peace, what next for Gaza?
Negotiations are ongoing to end the war in Gaza, with US President Donald Trump urging parties to “move fast” to reach a deal. But that outcome hinges on what comes next: how will Gaza be governed once the conflict ceases? Trump’s 20-point plan proposes to install a technocratic Palestinian authority with no involvement from Hamas, supervised by an international “Board of Peace.” What might this look like in practice, what can history teach us about its possible outcome, and will Hamas accept those terms?
Technocrats and trusteeship
Hamas had already agreed to"a national independent administration of technocrats" in September. Such a regime would be run by non-partisan experts chosen for their competence in various fields, such as infrastructure and financial management, to make and implement policy on a pragmatic, evidence-based basis.
But Hamas has not signed onto Trump’s proposed international supervisory board composed of himself as chair, together with notable public figures such as former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. The board has been described as an “elite managed trusteeship.” Trump stated that it could entertain “many thoughtful investment proposals and exciting development ideas…crafted by well-meaning international groups.” The proposal sets neither a timeframe nor a path to self rule.
A trip back in time?
Comparisons are already being made to colonial structures imposed by European powers in the 19th and 20th centuries. Starting in 1820, the British controlled much of the region around the Persian Gulf and Red Sea through protectorates, treaty arrangements which saw London handle foreign policy and defense while local potentates ran domestic affairs. The goal was not nation-building, but commerce, to secure shipping lanes east of Suez to India.
That structure changed after WWI, when the League of Nations created the mandate system, supposedly to prepare former colonies for independence, including the British Mandate for Palestine in 1922. But from the start, the mandate suffered from a legitimacy problem: rule without full sovereignty. This “supervision, not control,” as the League framed it, bred resentment and resistance in the form of the Arab Liberation Army. The mandate ended in the Arab-Israeli war, partition, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.
What could this mean for the Board of Peace?
Some critics have decried Trump’s plan as imperialism and a means of commercial gain for the US. The involvement of Blair has also raised eyebrows: Mustafa Barghouti, the general secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative, commented, “We’ve been under British colonialism already.”
But the plan has support from the governments of Qatar, Jordan, UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. The plan is also backed by European powers including Spain, Germany, and the UK and France, who recently recognized the State of Palestine, as well as Canada.
Engaging Middle Eastern powers to fund or staff the technocratic authority could mitigate the perception of western colonialism, but without a timetable for sovereignty could also mire regional governments in long-term management of the territory.
Is oversight necessary?
Apart from the terms of the Board of Peace, is any board required at all? Transitional governments can take many forms: Syria is currently transitioning to democracy after decades of dictatorship, starting with votes by an electoral college, but without any foreign oversight. Other nations, like East Timor, successfully transitioned from a colonial regime to self-rule in the early 2000s after a period of oversight organized by the United Nations - but remain dependent on foreign aid for infrastructure building.
Will Hamas ever accept oversight?
Hamas has accepted three points of Trump’s plan: releasing all hostages, surrendering power, and Israel withdrawing troops from Gaza. But it has so far rejected disarmament and Trump’s international board. It remains to be seen whether these are up for negotiation - or deal breakers.
Palestinians inspect the site of an Israeli strike on a beachfront cafe amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Deir Al-Balah, Gaza Strip, on January 14, 2025.
Gaza ceasefire seems tantalizingly close — how long could it last?
After months of negotiations mediated by the US, Egypt, and Qatar, Hamas on Tuesday accepted a draft ceasefire agreement that could bring an end to the fighting in Gaza – at least temporarily – if Israel’s cabinet approves it. Negotiators believe an agreement could be reached before Donald Trump is inaugurated on Jan. 20.
What’s in the deal? Hamas would release 33 of the roughly 94 remaining Israeli hostages — mostly women, children, and elderly or injured people — over six weeks in exchange for the release of hundreds of Palestinian women and children imprisoned in Israel.
During this first phase, Israeli forces would pull out of urban areas and allow some 600 truckloads of aid to enter Gaza each day. The IDF would not pull out of Gaza entirely, however, and people attempting to return to their homes will find them largely demolished.
Then it gets tricky. The details of the second and third phases would need to be negotiated while the first phase is in progress — and Eurasia Group regional expert Greg Brew isn’t confident that the right incentives exist to find success.
“Hamas really has two sources of leverage,” he says. “The first is the hostages, and when they lose the hostages they lose any ability to influence Israeli action. The second is their continued ability to fight, and it is likely going to continue a low-level insurgency against Israel and any potential new government formed to govern Gaza.”
So why a deal? For Hamas, a respite from combat allows reorganization and rearmament. The outgoing Biden administration, meanwhile, is eager for a win before it leaves office — and it’s one Trump will surely claim even if it comes before his inauguration. Brew says the timing offers the incoming administration a fig leaf. “When the deal collapses, he can say, ‘Oh, there were flaws in place. This was a bad deal. It happened under Biden's watch.’”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu similarly gets to have his cake and eat it too by delivering the hostage releases voters have demanded without fully committing to end the war, which would infuriate his far-right coalition partners.
“Netanyahu gets everything,” says Brew. “He gets a deal that makes Trump happy, that delivers a win to the Israeli people, that quiets the opposition, and that strengthens his position.”